The sun., 1879-06-10
NOT MRS. r. |. ASPINWALL.
FORMALLY MANNED TO TTO MEN, BUT
ONLY ONCE 4 WIFE
Probably the Queerest Divorce suIt that
Ever Ast"nished the Courts-A Ceremony
Performed In the Church Of Bethlehem.


Richard I. Asplnwall sued Helen c. Aspin-
wall whom he AYERS he married Ave years ago.
for absolute divorce md the case was tried yes
terday before Judge Donohue. Aspinwall is n
well-dressed man Of about 35. The defendant
who Is. perhaps. ten years younger. Is good
looking. She insists that she was not legally
married to Aspinwall. that the ceremony OF
marriage was procured by n fraud upon her.
and that she was Helen c. Smith. maiden. un-
ill sho was married to Joseph l.. Frame In 1876.
The Rev Frederick Ocrtel. called for tho plain
till. testified that on the Goth Of April. 1874 in
the Church OF Bethlehem, in Ninth avenue.
near Eighy-third street. he married the plain
tin nnd the defendant Aspinwall entered the
church in the afternoon and told him he wished
to be married. Being asked where the lady was.
Aspinwall said she was outside. and then he
escorted the defendant in She was accom-
panied by another lady. After asking the usual
questions the Rev MrOcrtel mnrried the couple
according TO tho forms Of the Episcopal Church.
He wis requested to keep tho marringe secret.
EX.Judge samuel Jones here rested the case
i9r the plaintiff, claiming that the ndmission in
the answer of the defendants subsequent mar
iiagr 10 Frame established marital iulilclity.
emitting the pantin to his divorce.
Aspinwal WIS put on tho witness stand Ilo
dwrlt. he said In tho house of his wfes
mother. One day they went to the Rev Mr..
Oerters church. accompanied 10y the defend
nnt's sister. On cross -cNumi nation hv MIR. Il.
n. Bangs. he snid he hnd some drinks in the
morning. but did not take any wine at dinner.
though champagne was on tho table.
Mr.. Frame. who was next Tor the plaintiff.
said he ilrst became ACQUAINTED with the de,
irndant In the latter part ot the summer OF
1915; lie married her about six months after
ward; Tho ceremony was performed by the
KY, Ney; Dr. y l. haig4t' one OF ne reeiors OF
since as husband and wife, She had gone by
the name Of Mss Smith. In the latter pnrt Of the
summerof 1919. they were boarding in the same
! piace. The witness met her In the company OF
! Asplnwall. Hs used 10 call her Nellie. Mr.
Mrs. Aspnwal After Miss Smith and her
| mother came to board where | wns. | was in
formed by her that an engagement With Aspin;
mysel To her. and was accepted. \ lew days
after was engaged to her. Aspinwall one even
ing called me- out 10 the dootstcls, and said he
| wtntrd to speak to me. He said. Nellie has
| t3!d NE you want To- marry her; sad l.
Yes. do Wei, said he. isupposc She has
told YOU about ihg little thing that happened be-,
| tween us Said l. Yes. she told me about it,
We'll. said he. feel very sorry about II. that
| It ever happened; there is nothing In IT. SAID
!. Richard, hope there is not from what YOU
say about IL, and from what she says should
| judge there Is not He said he had been en-
gagged 20 her for some time. but that he didn't
see as they were ever likely TO bo married. and
l. she wanted 90 marry ne W he thought be would
wall explained what he mennt 10y ." the little
thing, that happened,' the witness said. ' he
asked II she had told me about their going
up before some clergyman and going through
form ot mnrriage; be- said no more as To The
uctlllS OF H. lie sNlt tlCfe WAS nNtilliE IN ".
You relied upon his statementP" Mr.. Bangs
asked.
u lid" was the answer
" Wns anything said between you in relation
70 Aspinwall and Miss Smith living together rs
husband and wife p
" He told me something about this Aspin-
wall said l. | want you 10 tell the truth rs n
man, hnve you ever lived with Miss Smith Ha
her husbandf He said To me. No. she is rs
pure wnmnn as ever the sun ehone upon |
met Aspinwall ssveral times after that. before
our MARRIAGE. In the course Of eonversation
he asked mo when were 20 be married.
| told him didn't know. probably IN the spring
| lie told me, II you feel at all anxious about
| that thing that hHppsned. | don't see that YOU
need worry over it. Then he talked about hay-
| lnE the marriage aunuIed. and papers were
| drawn and served upon him In an an action by
! the defendant for that purpose"
The cnse iur the plaintiff having now closed
! Mr. Bangs moved 10 dismiss the com plant. on
the ground that II marriage relation was
proved between the plaintiff and the defendant.
and any Offence against Il had been shown. It
with the plaintiffs connivance and consent
Judge Donohue granted the notion. The
credit. Though In his complaint he avrrred
cOhabiiation after the marriage. the proof
showed the contrary. and he made no pretence
on the trial that such aVerment WINS true. Tho
papers put IN evidence by the defendant showed
thar she had sued for tho annu mrnt Of the mar
riage on tho ground Of fraud IN its procure
ment. and that he in his sworn answer had ud-
mitted the facts set oJt Ia the complaint. Her
complaint was that she did not consent because
Hhe NNs not IA condition 10 consent ana TINS
| he admitted by his answer. His present posi-
tion was contradcted by his own iormer aver
mcnis and he was. therefore. entitled 10 no
credit whatever: Judge DOnohue held the mar
riage TO be invalid. and M to tho next point. he
was equally confident that. within the terms OF
the law. tho plaintiff had not established that
the alleged offence was not committed without
his prvlty. knowledge. or consent
Mrs. Frame VINO had watched the proceed
ings with an anxious countonnnce. smiled as
the decision WIS announced. She WAS warmly
congratulated by her friends.