Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-07-18
The Pyncheon Family Troubles.

THE wIFEs SUIT FOR SEPARATION AND ALIMoNY.
Messrs- Cook a Cole to-day filed for Laura e.
Pyncheon bill in equity praying q separation
from William NICK Pyncheon, and that she be
granted aiimony and counsel fees pending the
suit She sets fort 4N.hat under her maiden name
of Laura E. Onu.t she was married to Pyncheon,
December Is, 1877, BY Rev. j. w. Parker, or the
BAPTIST church. They lived together until the
year 1880. although, she charges, he would some
times remain away from home two or three weeks
at time she charges that he abandoned her
ing house at No. 2o3 A street Southeast
He sold the furniture and at his quest she re-.
luctantly consented to an agreement that they
Should live apart, and, at his earnest solicitation
signed some sort OF a writing which he pretended
to read over to her. but the contents of which she
S Cam {1r reeoect He promised that he would pro
!iine 500 After making a short visit to friends
In Maryland she returned here and has
time to depend upon her own Efforts for her iiv
Ing. Her health becoming delicate she called
upon'tne defendant for support, but he objected.
nish her good home. She finally consented,
Ply later d ReT Of as s that to
they had not been separated long enough,
to establish charge OF desertion, and as
the District; that the complainant shouI 60 to
Fredericksburg, Va, where she had married
sister lying and there obtain divorce on the
Der 18th, 1881, she Instituted suit in the corpora
ton court OF the town OF Fredericksburg, in the
name OF Laura E. McPyncheon, which
name was an error OF either the
lawyer or clerk In drawing the papers
On the 18th OF February decree was announced,
pretending to grant divorce, and on the 10Th of
September, 1882, another decree was entered. pre-
tending also to grant divorce on the same ground,
the DEGREES making no provision for her support In
any manner, although she explained to her at.
brought. The delencant furnished her the names
OF the witnesses by whom the adultery could be
proven. She had no knowledge of the adul-
tAr1eS until informed OF them by her hus-
band She, however, she says, had infor-
nation OF other adulteries committed by him
doubt that he committed them also. About the
time OF entry OF the decree in the Virginia suit the
defendant gave her about 500, at which time she
signed what she supposed was receipt for the
money, but is Informed that the defendant now
claims that II was an acquittance In full rom all
future liability for her support The defendant
also paid the costs and expenses OF the divorce
suit. She alleges that the defendant has refused
to furnish complainant any home or means OF
support She alleges her belief that the decree
lawful wife, as at the time the decree was entered
neither party was resident of Virginia and the
rourt had no jurisdiction. The statement In the
bill that she was resident OF Virginia and had
lived IS months In Wisconsin were erroneous and
inserted without her knowledge. The complain
ant charges that when the defendant left her In
the spring OF 1880 he committed adultery with o
woman, and has since been living with her as his
mistress. though he pretends that he went through
the form OF marrying her short time ago She
says that the defendant Is man OF considerable
means and holds position In the Office OF the
architect OF tho Capitol at salary Of $1,000 per
annum.