New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-02-17
= THE COURTS.
THOMAS ]. HAvEMEYER SUEDFOR DIVORCE
HE DENIES THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS EVER MAR


THOMAS j. HAvEMEYER SUED FOR DIVORCE.
HE DENIES THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS EVER MAR
RIED TO HIM.
Helen ]. Havemeyer has begun in the Superior
Court an action against Thomas j. Havemeyer obtain
decree of limited divorce the ground Of cruelty fol-
lowed nv abandonment. The plaintiff alleges that she
was married to Mr. Havemeyer in September 1875, and
lived with him his wife until October 1882,
when no "cruey and wlnlly" abandoned
her Before lie abandoned her. he beat her at different
times. In January, 1876, he knocked her down and
otherwise abused her. In February of the same year
he struck her in the face backing and bruisng it" in
such way TO dsfgure her. In March be again beat
and abused her and "twsted and dslocaed her wrist
In May he beat her dscOlOr her left arm and to
deprive her Of the OF her arm for long time In
July was with him his yacht. where in the pros
ence OF the crew he struck her 'n the face with his
cenched fist" In March, 1879 at the st. Cloud Hotel
he heat her so cruelty that she obliged e. call for
help The proprietor OF the hot came to her assist
ance and assigned her another room, whore she was
obliged to remain in bed for three days, her race
eyes head ana BODY being bruised and blackened" In
1881 at the same hotel he twisted her arm with such
violence that she was in torture for several days Again
in 1882 he assaulted ana kicked her. and backened
her arms and the back OF her neck with
blows Of his fist" On boarl Of his yacht
in October he again assaulted her. aud
knocked her down and rendered her uscnsibe. The
next av he ahqnd med her Most OF the acts OF cruelty
on the part of Mr. Havemeycr were committed when he
was intoxicated.
The case came IN Yesterday on motion before Judge
Friedman for temporary alumOny ana counsel ftes MIS-
avcneyer in an affidavit used on the notion declares
that she is without any means support OF her
ana that her husband had her without MAKING
any nro,isjon Tor ter He also had given notice
to the proprietor OF the hotel where she Ia; lived
with him for seven years. That ne would no
longer pay her bills. Similar notices had been sent by
HIM to shopk with whom she had been IN the
habit Of dealing. she is now In an utterly destitute CON
di,on while he il rolling IN sun araluudaucc Of wealth.
being. she has often been Informed, worth about
S2.OOOO0O At any rate he owns the steam yacht Ideal
AMI maintains large and valuable lot OF tot,cs. d1
Havemeycr I'm his answer TO the complaint dCueS all
the material allegations contained i'll T. he mas hvcd ne
says during he past eighteen years Ior INC nCt part
~ ~ her rfine,is nj HE 81 Cloud Hotel but he was
never married her and gave Der The slightest
reason to imagine that she hs wife. lie not only
never married her but lac promised TO marry her.
lie never M any time or place struck maltrea ed her
The affidavit OF Frederick c. Iiycmcyer was also rad
on me motion He saws that he is the father of the de-
PENDANT and that has for the last twenty years
lived with him al his country hOmc, eA'epi
when he was temporarily IN tie city. iii, sons
trunks extra clothing guns and horses.
vehicles and personal effects generally, were Kept 81 MS
house lie and all the members OF his family nave al
ways believed that his had Wife society also re-
M ana t denies mat he ever told the plaintiff that hc
was worth -, 100000 He never gave notice 60 any
shupk cpers that would Dot he responsible Tor her
bills Ills wea tn is not one-fOurth Of 100000. His
income IRREGULAR and uncertain large 1rt oi bis
properly ing invested IN the stock OF a
company which sometimes does and sometimes does no,
declare and pay divdends Mr. Haycmeycr also declare
that the name OF the painuu Is MOI nay emeyer nut
Riplev or Chadwick In January, 1877, she began an
acton against him the complaint IN which contained
in a few days AMI executed release, which she signed
az Helen f. c. Ripley, at The same time acknowledging
that she had never en- married To hiln
The argument on the motion for aiimony ana coUnsel
fees was adjourned until February 2l Mes-rs Lmot'
Burnett Il Kdder are the attorneys FOR the plaintiff ana
Brooke that Mr. Havemcycr regards the bringing 81
the divorce suit against him as an attempt 10 eNtort
money.