New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-12-10
THE COURTS.
COMPLICATED DIVORCE SUIT.
THE RELATIONS OF n. c. FELLOWS AND ""'
puRBP ROBERTSON.

COMPLICATED DlfOhCE SOii'
TIE RELATIONS OF n. C. FELLOWS AND "''
PHGBE ROBERTSON.
The annals of the divorce courts contain
few more sngul n records than the suit OF Iacharo -
Fellows for the annulmont of the marriage oe'"
Mrs Pan,e II ,bertson aud himself. JUICE Laurehcc'
I'm Chambers OF the Court OF Common Pleas yeStcluus
rendered decision upon motions both by TIE pan'n
and he defendant. .
There is much conflict as 10 the facts MT Foho"a l.
a wel-known paens-lawyer VINO. III 1878 hveu az W.
So West wenty-hfhst Mrs. Robertson ycc at NO 81
IN ,ba same street He says that she al
VIVA represented that she was widow, ana ne mar'
ricd her February 3D. 1873 surprising her to nc one AS
matter OF fact she was then prosecuting an uo'on ~
absolute divorce from her husband "csih're IL NJ
ertson but the decree was not granted uulu 'o" "'S
after their marriage Mr.. Fellows asserts th"t "hen W
discovered the deception practised upon hin ~ '"o
woman he had married. he ceased 10 i've WIFE nei'
Soon afterward Mr. Robert7on tire divorced LusDaho'
appeared suddenly after having been IN NeVaoa ior
long tme end Ice began proc edings ~ nave the ue'
of divorce sci aside on the grouad that lie was not prop
ery served with notice and that he was innocent d. nv
CHARGES made against him. MI Robertson succeehe" ]"
that action and the Con ra Term of the Common cas-
Cart IN February 1880 sustained the decis on OF the
Cnurt below setting ASIDE the divorce UGder tba'
decision SIR Fellows brought the present az
ton The dceudant, who continued to cal heiseH
Mis- Fellows. in answer, averrcd h2t wheh MI fc"""9
married nor hc knew al! about her matrimonial r'"-
tons Tie report referee in the divorce ease gave
eci on IN her three days before she was ihaif'a
to Mr. Felowa and she supposed ibat mat Was G tint
was necessary 10 free her from tie former matrmohh
bonds When discovered the true i1t', sle lslse'
on being remarked mt NJ Fellows said that Il. "ou'o
give dinner pariy, introduce her rs hs VIC an" 'h"'
this would he ali that would be Necessary; ana TINS was
done. Ste at % cl cd that the decision setting 1alHc
the divorce wa- uitancd by deception on tc Court me
aar y who represent d Ny. E"bor.sln nyng no an
thotv from Ia II, and oeiHE In reality TIE ph aIoiuy
r il we H. state o. AHA IS last June when Mr. Rob
crtscn sud0cny nj 4. NJ. Fellows = % morton ma t
TO atrke cut the bulk o. the decniant answer whe eos
She sought 20 iI.tfy ana MAINTAIN mr. secnnd
INTO conr and asked - bc allowed 10 iutep se suppl
mental answer, inc ground that since a. conmrhct,
soon aiter hts dedih Mr. Fellows, VIII "IIeW III u
fact hau again nir.iel tbe dcien'aht J"hn :. Law"
renee WIS tYe counsel tor Nt. Fellow ana ne Gled
soon # err Mr. Roocrt.ons del b. NJ Fellows urged
tue defendant not t. appoint any o'htf i'.o h,
40 ~ err remarrIagc IL should take pa"e; AMI II hn' ny
mutual agreement Ihry ""ni "-r.ucI 's uS"a'u "a"
wife 10 N,1lott and other sUmncr resort a h'' 90
w ave- ~ NJ, ~ FL -,ve ANA aiterN arr h. took h.r
r0ue tor her he TOOK her ut tue hotel 5tp'chD 10,
a piper wnich ne waniel Lcr 10 STA wiia-
tore the pa e. lnt0 DilS' ne llchtu
up some rces from those that rem med she Dis
covered that il rc"1@e of her claims ~ hs we.
He furnished her with MONIES 10 - 10 Eit"pe aud On
nls promise not TO proceed In the ac'ion she sahed
October . A .cw days after arrival ~ EnEana she
learned by telegram tnat Mr. Follows WI" MOVING IN
me Icfoy and sne Immediately returned. M. Eel
lows denies most at thtsc statements, AM cOhehdN
that there not sufficient proo 81 N ho'tr'sOhs
derin. d tat ne never rem rr cd i4e 40 eEdint.
| JUDO Larrrmnre grants Mt. frlioNss ihOtloh 10
on buik % deit MIA Is answer. FOR, ne
eIy~ M the lime his marriage the defendant WAS
,ull ilIr W WestnDIe a. 70 crsOn. hnd the MAR
rIg e ~ Mir Fellows nun aHd N"d, n"iWithstanu-
ue the peculiar r,lpt the parties 10 tue suit lie
also ocus The 0reudau = motion brcaue ne says Tue
.lidfy OF ecrrrnnIini marriage 10 Dr. ttHo"S was
the oHiy br tr ana the subsequent &c IONS Oh
ihc oarfe- could not Va ida an act winch the aW de-
elar,d 10 Doe VOID. Inc decision OF Judge LirIemOre
praciic1!y Geierun- the wuOle matter IN Nh LOWS
ayor unless Gciendant chooses t0 bring Hn ACTON
frH s-uarlte maintenance under The alleged narraLe
Il at summer. Jodu =. Burrl ana G)orge Mbriskie
appeared for nr. Fellows; joan i0Wusnand Tor the
/