The Evening critic., 1882-05-18
THE EVENING CRITIC.
THE ADDIcKs DIVORCE CASE.
The Wusband.s Reply TO the Appii-
cation tor AIfmony.
SHED AUGUST Ises!

Mcssrs. Charles Thompson and John A.
Clarke, counsel for the husband In the divorce
suit Of j. II. Addicks against Helen L. Ad-
dicks, to-day filed the petition OF the complain
ant In answer to that OF the defendant for
alimony and expenses. The husband denios
that she has always since their marriage con-
Quoted herself In a proper and wife-like man
ner toward him, but charges that she behaved
as he alleges in his original. petition. That
the statement, made by her, that she won't to
reside in Great Britain or on tho Continent at
the desire and request OF her husband is en-
tirely false, but that she went of her own volt
tion and against his repeated rcmonstrances
II Is true, however, that he agreed TO furnish,
and did furnish whenever called upon, sup
port for his wife and child he felt II his duty
10 do so as long as the relations OF husband
and wife existed between them. In support OF
this fact he refers to letter, exhibited with
Tho Secretary Of the Navy in reply to a COM
munication of that gentleman upon the sub
ject-mattcr OF the suit the husband adopting
each and every statement therein contained
on oath. The husband also asks leave to refer
to draft drawn upon him by his wife, dated
London, March l, 1889, in contradiction of tho
statement that she is In Dresden in a desti-
tute condition. In further answering he says
that II his wife Is In destitute circumstances IL
is her own fault and not his, as he has always
been willing TO honor any draft drawn by her
for the purpose before stated, but that she has
not done so since March last. He states that
he did not accompany her 20 the depot, but
went thero out OF the love and affection that ho
bore his child, TO bid It goodbye and SEQ II
and tho mother safely upon the train, their
destination at that time being Philadelphia, as
he believed from hia wife's positive declara-
ton. Under no circumstances would he have
allowed his child to have accompanied her out
side of the United States, as she had frequently
threatened her husband that she intended TO
go home 70 her parents to live, In England,
left this city, as she stated, to visit somo
friends in Philadelphia. In reference to the
statement made by the plaintiff to Maria NJ
HOsttCk that hp intended TO send his wife to
England, he says that may have beenstrue,
but with no intention of instituting proceed
ipgs for divorce, as his wife well knew that IL
was his firm intention TO commence such pro-
ceedings against her. He denies the truth of
the allegation sworn to by Charles L. Wheeler
his consent that his wife left the city prepara-
tory TO going to England, and as to his brother
procuring her u free passage on steamship
OF the American line he knows nothing about
1t, and II true 1t was without his consent AS
the statements made by Susan Hill arc not
material in considering the question of all
mony he declines to answer them at this time.
While humsy submitting to any order that
this court may think proper to pass, he thinks
that in his present financial condition, and the
obligations he is compelled to meet, and the
circumstances Of this case, to compel him TO
Fay passage money to his wife, who left this
country without his knowledge and consent,
would work him almost irreparable injury.
Accompanying his AFFIDAVIT is another from
Mr.. Charles Thompson, jr., to the effect that
Mrs. Addicks called on him on the 18th of last
February and accused him Of having talked
disrespectfully OF her, and said that she I'M
derstood that her husband was going to sue
for a divorce from her. He informed her that
he had been retained for that purpose. She
said that she was going. to leave the city on
that day, but If she could get the divorce In
stead of her husband she would do so, but she
knew that she could not, as she had consulted
n lawyer and found that 1t was 50. While
they were talking her husband entered the
office and was surprised to see her, but soon
entered into an animated conversation about
their domestic relations. Mrs. Addlcks in
formed her husband that she was going to
England, and asked him II he would allow
her $50 per month. He told her that IL she
went to England she did against his con-
sent and without his assistance, but he would
allow her the $50 per month for the support
of the child wherever she was, and told hel
emphatically that he intended to procure q
divorce from her.