National Republican., 1880-07-27
Cu4ReED WIN DESERrroN.
A Disguised Suit for Divorce Re-enteret
Under Its Proper lille.

Under Its Proper lille.
Kato VI. Jones, through her solicitor, Mr.
Robert J. Murray, has filed a bill for divorce
from her husband, john III. Jones. Both are
residents Of the District aud were married here
October %, 1876 by Row A. J. Bender. They
resided at her mothers until April 1, 1871
and then went to housekeeping. They lived
together one month"; when sho charges that he
deserted hcr, and has contributed nothing to-
ward her support since April l, 1873. She
also asks permission to resume her maiden
name Of Kate VI. Harman.
Clara B. B. Hall has peitiontd for divorce
from her husband Richard NJ. Hall, but ms her
attorney has withdrawn the papers from the
CLERKS uliice, the charges upon which the com.
plant is based cannot be given. The history
OF former case, however, may furnish most
OF the data. On May II, 1870, Mr.. William A.
Mcloy, counsel IN the above case. filed bill
in equity for G. Brooks aud G. ID. Hall
against Alexander Line, d. b. Specs, john
Hall and Joseph T. Brown, to rescind .
contract and for release. On May H. 1879,
an amended bill under the backing of Hall
VS.. Line ct Al. was filed. Witness testified it
was \ suit brought by Clara b. Hall against
Richard NJ. Hall. 1t sets forth that the poti.
toner for upward of ten years had been n
resident of this District rs also had the de.
! iendant, but that within two years past (l617-
| 1879 he removed to Baltimore. They were
married in Cincinnati. Ohio May &c, 1859, and
| two children had been the fruit of the mar.
riagc. More than two years before the com
mcncCmcnt of the proceedings she charged
| that Richard VI. Hall willfully deserted and
| abandoned her and had censod % colabit with
| her for that full and uninterrupted period.
She therefore prayed that process be
| issued against him to answer the
material avcimemts Of the petition, and
| that she DO divorced from the bonds OF
/ mntrimpnv with him with rauEpnnl,la IN.
| vision for her maintenance On May 10 the
| husband answered, admitting the marriage
| aud birth Of children, but us TO the other
| charges submitted himself TO tho judgment
and decree Of the court upon prcof adduced.
| On May 81 tho defendant slipua ed that the
plaintiff might proceed in the cause as in case
| OF default, after due service of process, all
| notices being waived. On May p the case
| was referred TO Examiner Lovtioy TO take
testimony, and the depositions were returned
June II, but are not now on file with the
papers in the clerks office. The original bill
is also missing. On September 10 the bill was
dismissed in equity by Justice Macarthur
without prejudice. An appeal was taken tc
| the general term, and on December 20 a decree
WAS rendered dsmissing the bill, with costs
After the filing Of the original bill all the
parties apparently dropped out OF the
ease excepting Clara b. Hall, and when
| the amended bill was filed Richard NJ. Hall
| appeared as defendant, and the case then de-
vcOped into n suit for divorce. Having failed
| in that instance the counsel is now making a
second effort, but instead of calling it a suit
TO rescind contract and for release and hav'
ing various parties connected Herewith, be
rightly styles it suit for divorce, with the
proper parties set out in the bill. The facts IN
| the first suit being so well known makes il
| unnecessary to have the second bill handy Ia
the clerks Office for information, as it i:
reasonable to suppose that all the charges pre-.
ferred in the first bill will be reiterated in the
suit just instituted.