New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-02-03
THE COURTS.
A WOMAN WITH TWO HUSBANDS.


| NEITHER OF WHOM SEEMS TO WANT HER-DE-
CIsIoN IN THE REMARKABLE ROBERTSON d.
voRCE CASE.
| decision was rendered yesterday by the
Court OF Common Pleas General Term, in the divorce
OF Phoebe Robertson against Wesmore R. Robert
which, from It's peculiar features has attracted
wide attention. The parties to the suit lived In New
York. In 1871, when the plaintiff began suit for sepa-
ration on the ground OF cruelty The defendant made
general denial No further action taken for time
and 10 October, 1871. the plaintiff went to Nevada.
where he remained until 1873 In January 1873 the
plaintiff revived the suit She made affidavit That In
1871 the defendant had committed adultery end that
ne then I'm Jail I'm Nevada on charge OF having
committed horrible murder. The Court allowed the
plaintiff TO set mp these allegations, and the action TO De
changed from suit for separation to an action for ao
soute divorce. Mr.. Van Wyck, the counsel for Mr. Rob-
ertsoD, represented he had not heard from bis
client since October 1871 and did know where he
was, but he put In an answer denying the adultery.
The referee before whom the tried reported
In favor of the divorce the Court confirmed the report
and granted the divorce in March, 1878. Eight days
before the plaintiff was remarked to Richard c. Fellows,
prominent patent lawyer formerly OF Washington, now
of this city he being entirely ignorant OF these proceed
ings claims, and sJpposng that he was marrying
a widow. The plaintiff said afterward that she was III
formed by the that he had reported In her favor
and granted the divorce and thereupon she married
supposing IL Was all right When Mr. Fellows learned
Of the earlier history his wife they became estrange
aud he anxious TO find means OF separating nim
self from her. According to the allegations IN some Oi
the proceedings retained Mr. Van WICK as his coun
sell aud had him employ detectives to ind NIL ROBERT
son IN Nevada, and prepare papers 10 set aslue ene
decree divorce. Mr.. Robert appears TO nave co
scented to the arrangement, and on November 20 1870
ne made affidavit (haYing come To Ncw-1ork TOT tne
nnrposel THAT he had left NewYOrk In 1879 ana nhd
since been In Nevada that be had just Learned OF tne
decree and that he innocent OF the adultery
charged. a.. H.
on January o. 1870. an order was granted Tor ne
naintiG Ia snow cuu,e why default should not NC
aDene and the decree aside The panin set up Ter
good fath and remarriag The Court sent ne case 70
referee 10 determine whether adultery Had Deen cou-
mted and II was from this order that appeal was taken
10 the General Term John f. Burrlll appeared Tor the
defen DAM and appellant; John Iownshend 1Or Tue
paintiR Judge Van Brunt the General Term OPINION
written him. after overriding other OBJECTIONS, hos
that the had power TO make tue Ofu.f uuueI
which the action changed from an action TOT sep
araon to one OF absolute divorce. No Amendment conld
20 so far as change the nature OF the action Chc
Justice DAILY writes OPINION In which be coDcura upon
the question material TO this decision Inc Court tere-
fire holds that the decree OF divorce must be set aside
the defendant, VINO IL the Of a wealthy Virginia
PLANTER recently been the lnsRatOr or othcf pro,
ceedings for the purpose of having tue decree AInFeu
ana this acton withdrawn he las come 20 the cOncln-
slOn that IL would be better for HIM II the palntl1
remained the wife OF MI Fellows. "a be, under the laws
Of Nevada could marry again and be rid OF the RESPONSE
bity Of supporting the plaintiff Tor whom ne appears
stand IN the singular predlcament at present. Oh a
woman with husbands. neither OF whom wants ner,
and with neither whom, whatever the event, Is she
likely TO live again wife.