New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-08-09
THE COURTS
CURIOUS MARITAL COMPLICATIONS.


TIE COMPLAINT IN THE FELLOWS DIVORCE SUIT
DISMISSED
An order was entered in the Supreme Court.
special Term yesterday by Justice DoDohue in the di-
vorce suit OF Phoebe Fellows against Richard O. Feiows
which indicates end has finally been put to the
litigation which grew out Of the curious marital compn
cations OF this couple. Mr.. Fellows who Is lawyer,
married Mrs Phoebe Robinson In this city on February
g. 1873 In suit which he began in the Court OF Com
mon Pleas about two years ago. he claimed that when he
married her he supposed that she was widow erwad
he discovered that instead OF widow she was advorced
woman and that the decree divOrclng her from "es'
r. Robertson had not been entered ut TOUR uaSS
after her marriage to him. Thereupon, believing tnat
she had deceived him. he ceased living with her.
short time after this westmore r. Robertson who had
been in far West during the suit against MN
for divorce returned the city and moved To SET ase
the decree, and that opportunity be given 10 nun W
defend himself, alleging that he had not peon
properly served and that he was innocent
OF the wrongdoing alleged against hlm
Both motions were granted in the Special Term and the
proper order affirmed in the General Term III reo-
The Supreme Court, In which he prayed Tor al ahhuI
ment of the marriage with Phoebe robertson. o .ho
In the answer filed by The defendant IN that case sue
denied thai she had ceiyed Mr. Fellows and asserted
that he knew all about her ana heI antrs Wien h me
married her. She, however, had been deceived Ior enc
lad honestly believed that she was divorced from heI
former husband Us soon az he reeIee IN sne caSe
ror she had insisted upon being remarked 10 MI fe
Iowa after he decree had been entered but Mr. FelOws
said IL was unnecessary and her dinnerparty hl
which he introduced her ms WIFE she furtheT as
ed that the Court had been deceived when IL SET
the OF divorce FROM kODertsOn or Tue pro-
ceedngs ended In this result had Deen nsuSatea
by Mr Fellows. Robertson, II was SAID, nad acu SUI
denly June Mr. Fellows replied TO this attack
by moving that substantially ali OF these alegaoh5 oe
stricken from tne answer. Mrs. Fellows Iheh asAei
leave to file supplemental answer, III when se WlsheI
10 set forth that after RObertsOns death Fellows nau
married her again ANA introduced her at Newport as us
wife and they afterward lived together In flfn-
ave and al the RossmOrc Hotel. lie promised, urtner,
10 drop the sui. the annulmont Of the marriage
Whine Ar the ,ssnOro Hotel nc urged her 10 take TRIP
TO Europe This consented to do, but she refused 10
sign n paper which lie handed her. aud which, arer sac
her claims on him She went to Europe, but ID Engahu
heard that annulnent suit was being prtsseu ~ d
determination. and returned here 10 detenu neIseH III
I'm counter affidavit Fellows denied that there mao
been satisfactory proof OF ROOcrtaOns dedth anu ueheu
| thai he had married the woman u second tlne.
ON The issue thus raised in IN he pea1lngs Judge Lar
remOre passed on December 8, 1880, but before then
Mrs Fellows began action for limited divorce III the
Suor.ue Court Judge LarrenOre granted the lnOHOn
to strike out bulk Of the matter IN the answer ahn
| held tnat the orienal marriage was null ana VOld
Yesterday proceedings Tor divorce begun by the
woman were terminated Dy OrIcr entered ~ justice
Donouue WITH consent OF the pllnJH ana her coul
| s.l The complaint dismissed; judgment was en-
the plintlH Was e1JOlneu Iou
making or asserting any claim against TIE defendant
hs REPRESENTATIVES or his properly, ana from Claiming
ar holnr herself tne vile o. the defendant
ana the plaintiff ordered To execute ana deliver 70
the defendant written lnstrumenI releasing al UeIos'
| Ill or claim to his properly.