Daily Republican., 1880-03-02
An sUanAppx RAaR.


A wiImingteninn Divorced I'm 1877
without the Knowledge OF His
wife-The Latter now Entering
Legal Proceedings for Mainto-
nance I'm Philadelphia.
II will be recollected that In the ses-
sion OF the Delaware Legislature held
In 1877, J. Percy Robinette, then res
idsnt Of this city, procured divorce
from bis wife Charlotte Josephine Leila
Robinette. 1t seems that the wedding
occurred in September, 1873, at the resi-
dence of the BRIDES father in the town
Of Govsrnour, St. Lawrence County,
New York.
Immediately after the wedding they
went to the Metropolitan Hotel, where
they occupied seperate rooms. Three
days afterward they departed for Eu'
rope, having different nou-oommunica-
ting state rooms in the ship. They
spent month in England and six weeks
on the continent. Throughout all this
time, according to Mr.. Robinette, she
refused to act towards him as a wife,
and on the continent she preferred the
society of strangers to that of himself.
On account Of her conduct he determin
ed to return home, and he endeavored
to persuade her to accompany him, hui
she refused and remained behind. I'm.
mediately upon arriving In America
December 6, he wrote her q letter en-.
closing e40 and commanding her to re-
turn to him. To this she made no re-
ply. Mrs. Robiuette having returned
to Philadelphia from her foreign tour
has brought suit against her divorced
husband for support. Previous to the
hearing before the magistrate, 1t was
reported that the meeting Of the lady
and gentleman before their marriage,
were these Of two young persons hav.
ing q warm admiration for each other,
but utterly without that feeling which
commonly exists between lovers, and
that desire Of each to enjoy the society
of the other until death should sever
the knot Of friendship induced them to
make the agreement that they would
bs legally married, but always live as
brother and sister.
According TO the lady's testimony,
which is not yet finished, her husband
left her in London, for the reason that
she was too i'll to accompany him to
America.
He had not treated her as a husband
should have done, however, and had
more than once remarked to her that 1t
was "folly for uncoDgenial people to be
living together He said upon reaching
America again, he would take steps for
procuring divorce To this 1t does not
appear that she said anything one
way or the other, butt was understood
that he would remit to her g40 at once,
and that whenever she should need
more she would only have to telegraph
for it. They parted in less than three
months after their marriage. Subse-
quently she received from him letter
with remittance Of g40. She replied
to that letter and wrote to hin several
times aftsrward, when che needed
money, but never got a response. In
the meantime she supported herself by
giving lessons in elocution, public read
ings and performing on the stage.
Excepting the one remittance above
mentioned, the lady alleges that her
husband never did anything for her
support after the time he left her. They
had no child, and there had never
been contamination of the marriage.
She was not able to accumulate enough
money to pay for her passage to this
country until April, 1877, when her
mother sent her $500. She then return
ed and stopped for some time with her
brother, in New York city. 1t was then
that she first learned that her husband
had obtained the divorce two months
previously. Concerning statements
made by Mr.. Robinette in his petition
for divorce. she says that he never
asked for contamination Of the mar
riage;he engaged two rooms at the Met
ropolitan Hotel she occupied one and
he the other he did the sams thing
aboard the steamer, aud subsequently
through their European travels the
name "Miss Bertrand" was assumed
with his consent.