Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-06-02
MR. CHRISTIANCY'S MARITAL
WOES.
The Ex.SenatOT's story of HIS TrOu
bles Supported by Documents.

In the Christiancy divorce suit the testi-
mony Of ex-senator Christiancy is now be-
ing taken. In connection with It several
important letters hsve been put in evidence,
which, It is thought, will have weight In the
decision of the case. Among them is q
long letter written by Mr.. Christiancy on
August is, 1878, to his wife's father, John
w. Lugenbeel, with regard to Mrs. Chris
tiancy's alleged bad conduct. 1t begins with
a reference to the correspondence between
the writer and Miss Lugenbeel before their
MARRIAGE correspondence IN which, Mr..
Christiancy says, he endeavored carefully
and serupulously to convince her
that she ought not to marry him, and in
which he insisted many times that she
should reconsider the matter. He urged
particularly, he SAYS, his own unftness on
account of age, and said to her that he had
comparatively short time to live, while she
at his death would be young. He admitted
that he loved her, and said that If, after full
and mature consideration, she still wished
to marry him he would consent, He sup
posed and believed, he says, that she would
see the unsuitability Of the match, and
abandon all thought of 1t, but when, after
all his expostulatiOns, she declared that she
still wished him to make her his wife, he
had, as a gentleman, only one course to
take. The marriage took place, and If
the love which she professed for him
had really existed, nothing, he says, could
have made him happier. On the morning
Of the wedding, however, she heard of the
return Of James Lugenbeel, and tainted
upon receiving the news When they
reached Philadelphia and were alone she
told him that she had been engaged to Mr..
Lugenbeel; that the engagement had been
broken off, and that she did not know how
deeply she loved him until bis name was
mentioned. She said she had perjured her
self in her marriage vows; that she was
miserable, and that she wanted a divorce
forthwith. When they returned to the city
all went well until she met Mr.. Lugenbeel
in the art gallery, and from that time
she seemed detected and desperate,
and again asked for a divorce. Soon after
this Mr.. Frank Anderson became attentive
to her, and her affections seemed to attach
themselves alternately to him and to Mr..
Lugenbeel, and again came the frenzy for
divorce. Finally she quieted down and ap-
Desred to think more of her husband. AT
ter she returned home In August, 1876, her
love for Anderson broke out afresh and her
hatred for her husband increased. She also
had fOndness for Sam Register, of Baltt-
more, and for Mr.. Mayer. She often de-
clared that she wished her husband was
dead, and said that he was all that stood
between her and happiness.
Mr. Christiancy then refers to the fact
that his wife went to the healing springs in
preference to going to Saratoga or Kansas
with him, and says that he felt suspicious
that she had gone to the springs with some
old lover. When she wrote to him che
tainted him with being old; did not pre-
tend to love him; said she would not live
with him again; tnat she could spend all the
money she pleased; that she would run him
in debt, and that she wanted divorce. The
husband replied that he would not quarrel
with her, nor would he be ruined
was willing to receive her at
home, treat her kindly, and provide for her
in proportion to his means, but from that
time forward he would make no apology
for any conduct Of his. In referring again
to Frank Anderson, Mr.. Christiancy says
that he has received letter of caution from
Mobile, Mr.. Anderson's residence, and that
reports are already in circulation with re-
gard to the intrigue between the latter and
Mrs. ChristiancY. He closes his letter by
appealing to Mr.. Lugenbeel to interest him
self In his daughters welfare, to check her
downward course, and to save her from
running her reputation.
The letter of caution referred to by Mr.
Christiancy in his letter to Mr.. Lugenbeel Is
dated Mobile, April 26, 1878, and signed
Molie F. Lyons. 1t states IN substance that
n uldu III MOUIlc L ANDERSON DaO
told the writer that he had been criminaly
intimate with Mrs. ChristiancY before her
marriage; that he was still in correspondence
with her; and that he could, through her,
control the vote of her husband in the Sen
ate in the contest then pending with regard
to the United States Marshaship in Alabama.
In his testimony Mr.. ChrIstiancy said that he
showed this letter to his wife and fur
nished her with q copy to send TO
Mr.. Anderson for explanation; that the lat
ter denied the truth Of the statements and
said that the letter was a political trick
With this denial he (Mr. Christiancy) was
forced to be content, but he was not satIs-
fed. Subsequently he opened accidentally
a letter addressed to his wife by her conf =
Dental friend, Miss Lille MeloY, and found
in it another letter In the handwriting of
Mr.. F. Y. Anderson, addressed to "Mrs. K.
X. Wharton" and signed mamie" The
letter was uuimportant, but began "My
Darling Chit" and closed with an assurance
that he would write again upon reaching
Mobile. 1t is though that Mr.. Christiancy's
testimony will be finished this week.