New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-12-21
WAS SHE MRS LABOUOHERBf
MRS. PIGEON SEEKS A DIVORCE.
TIE APPLICATION MADE TO A COURT IN KiOh"o''''
lpr TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIDUSE'l


lBr TELEGRAPH TO THE TpIDUSE'l E..
R1CHMoyp Va. Dec. 20-0n December d h"is
for divorce was begun in the Chancery Cou,, VI
the CITY of Richmond the plaintiff being MIS- ho'
uetta PIGEON. through c. j. Darlington, her heA'
friend and the defendant beng Richard fieeo"'
Al ,bo time the papers were fled they attracted no
particular attention except that III was Jo'u'''iS
remarked that seven lawyers were put oo" a'
couoseJ for one woman, though to speak correctiy
there were only two law Rrms. VIZ: Dunhing' hu-
sail. Hart & Fowler, Of New-York, ard Carrrhg'on'
Davies 81 Hooper, Of Richmond. In due course inc
nsuol publication was made requiring Pigeon.
nonresident, to appear and do what he regarded
rs necessary TO defend his interests. Since the SUIT
vas instituted newspaper publications have
brought into public notice the tact that Mrs.
Lebouchere WAS, before she became the recognized
wife of Mr. Labouchere, Mrs. Pigeon.
On the night of December 4, and in accordance
with correspondence that had previously taken
place with the Richmond attorneys Mrs. Pigeon
arrived here. She was accompanied by her mald
and by Mr.. Fowler, of her counsel, and by
young Mr. Dunnng, son of The lawyer.
On December she made affidavit before MI.
Hooper stating that on July 3 1864, III ST. Georges
Church, HanOver-square, London, she was married
TO Richard Pigeon; that she has ever been true
aud faithful wife 10 the aforesaid Pigeon, but that
son was born of the aria @ and has now nearly
arrived at years when he can earn his own living
and assist in the support OF his mother; that to
prevent Pigeon aforesaid from stepping in and inter-
fcrng with this son, and for other reasons,
divorce is prayed. Mrs. Pigeon further
ALLEGED that the had lived for several years III the
United States and now hnds heiseli fesioehI ot
this city; that is 10 say, Rlcnn0nd, va. 10 an OF
which sue made OATH, III the regular 1orm required
10y law.
Tue gentlemen hero who were employed as coun-
sci for her by the NewYork firm had no reason TO
SUPPOSE that tney were dealing with others tnan
plain Mrs. Pigeon. They rec lVed assurances Ifom
Aer that SIZE was Dona hde resldeni OF the olate'
She sad that though would be compelled To re-
turn North Immediately, which she dlu, sne would
return here again. Mrs. Pigeon was handsomely
dressed aud Appeared 10 be about iorty years oid.
Nj. Darlington, Ot tho Richmond law nrn, Is the
1t is a matter OF speculation as to why the. New
YORK hrIn sought our court. Perhaps they thousht
thats III tins OOscuTe locality, the newspaper lncn
would not bother them II they had mad
not, the divorce would nave Deeh
bly, never have seen the order OF publication, and
there would have been ono 10 lrteltere.
From what Mrs. figcon SAID to the few people Win
wnom sAe cOnversed while here, her husband lac,
cordlng to accouutl was convicted Of crime ana
sea, out of England. MIR. Fowier mauc affidavit
at the court tnot Pigeon rs not resldent OF fIr-
ginla mrs Plgeo. : son, mentioned III the BILL is
now said to DO receiving nis education at the OX-
to d University i'll England. lie IS about eighteen
nen the bill in chance1y was read TO Mrs.
Pigeon TO DC sworn TO- 1t ascer .aiDed that there
was no DIDie Within reach, and she was asked 10
raise her hand and did 50. he notary then siid
You swear THAI the statements herein contained
true 10 the best OF your knowledge and belief"
she answered: swear that they are true
L. /. CarringtOD who appears IN the bill IN
Chancery the next friend OF Mrs. Pigeon IS tho
son Of Mayor Carringon, OF counsel for the LADY.
IL is now supposed that the lawyers sought our
courts z for divorce because the Virginia laws
are exceedingly lax ON the question of residence.
Notwithstanding airs. Pigeon mad not been i'll VIZ
wOII have gotten tlo divorce. An order OF pub
hcatlon wa Inado for MI. Pigeon come forward
and defend the sult. lhe order
WAS puOnshed III an afternoon paper Oh
thousand 10 one hat Zig ,on never would have
nearu OF case, and at February term OF the
court the jud Sment of divorce wond have been
entered ny detau.t of Pigeon. Doubtless there have
tins Is TIC iirst one that has attained puOllclty.
Tne law hrm emf DlOy cd here DetIs II good reputa-
1On.
The firm of Dunning, Edsall Hart 81 Fowler have
their Office at No. 81 Wall-st. and do large and
important business. One of the members OF the
firm, when asked about the suit yesterday,
SAID that he Would prefer that their
names should not be mentioned in con-
neciion vita the matter. He said that suit by
Mrs. Laboucherc or Mrs. Pigeon for divorce from
her husband, whicn bis firm were her attorneys,
" was pending" Whether such suit con-
! templated or whether the matter was in
| their hands for LEGAL action this gentleman was
unwilling TO state. He said that he pre- erred that
| TIE lRIBUNE should get all its information from
| kclmOnd aud depend upon tnat. lie especially de-
sired mat hls name should not b5 mentioned AS au
thUrl.y iOr any statement published,