Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-12-21
A CURIOUS CASE.
MRS. LABOUcaExr AND NIX. r1sE,
Seeking = Divorce From Q Han Who She
says 10 Not Her ElusDAnd-A Myseeri-
OuS Walt Tn Richcaon0

Seeking Divorce From . Han wAo She
says 's Not asr Huspand-A Mysteri-
Gus Walt TO Richmond.
A rather singular case has just been de-
veloped in Richmond, Va, growing out
of divorce suit which, when it becomes
known to the public will be likely to at
tract very considerable attention in con.
nection with the Lsngtry Labouchere
gossip. About December 4 there
arrived in Richmond by a train from
the North lady, accompanied
by her maid and Messrs. Dunning and
Fowler, attorneys, of New York The
party stopped at one Of the leading hotels,
and the attorneys Immediately sought q
conference with tho law firm of Messrs.
Darlington, Hooper & Davies, gentlemen
of high standing. there, to whom it was
made known that tho lady who accom-.
panied them was Mrs. Henrietta Pigeon, of
London, England, whose husbands name
is Richard Pigeon, but who has since been
identified as Mrs. Henry Labouchere. The
object of their errand to the law office of
the Richmond irm was stated to be to
seek divorce for Mrs. Pigeon from her
husband. A bill was prepared and fled
in the Richmond chancery court. In that
paper it is stated that the cause of the de-
sire for legal separation between Pigeon
and his wife is that the former deserted
the lady and treated her cruelty. The
further alleged that she was married in
London in July 1854, and that the fruit of
the union is son who is Eow IS years old.
The bill further sets forth that
the whereabouts of Pikeon, the Ge
forGoyf 30 ,,p1n0vUu fn r,1ointiH
In accordance with the laws governing
divorces in that state publication has
been made setting forth that Henrietta
Pigeon, through her Iext friend, G. j.
Darlington, brings this suit ioT divorce.
and calls upon him to come forward and
defend his interests. The stranger paid Il
liberal retaiIer's fee to the Richmond
counsel to represent the case, with the
understanding that when the divcree is
secured for Mrs. PIGEON that still larger,
though by no means exOrbitant, sum will
be paid. Mr.. Hooper, the Richmond at
torney who prepared Mrs. Pigeons afida-
Wit, describes that lady as rather inclined
to be stout, brunette, about 40 years, CT
pleasant manners and decided culture.
The lady remained with her attorney until
Dec. Z, when the party left for Washing
ton. 90 ~,
In an interview with q newspaper re-
porter on that or on the following day,
Mrs. LabOuchere's attorney stated that
there was no truth in the story that rup-
ture had taken place between that lady
and Mrs. Langtry. Continuing the con-
versation the gentleman who represented
Mrs. Labouchele said that his client had
como to Virginia to attend to some land
interests she had in the state. An inves-
tigation at the time failed to discover the
presence of Mrs. Langtry's chaperone in
Richmond, but Mrs. Pigeon was there at
the time 1t was reported that Mrs. La
bOuchere was absent from New FORK.
When Mrs. Pigeon lett the city it was
with the understanding with her legal adj
visers that she would return in February
next, when it is expected her case will be
called in the chancery court. This suit
has brought to light feature in the Vir-
ginia divorce laws not generally known
there, and that is that party to such a
proceeding need not necessarily be citi-
zen of the state. Mrs. Pigeon, il her bill
claims to be resident, bat the time could
not have been cf more than 90 hours dura-
tion. The discovery of that oversight i'll
the law, of course, would recommend that
state to citizens OF other states who dc
sired to bs released from the marriage
bonds.