New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-04-06
THE CASE OF THE RAMSDENS.
THE STRANGE STORY TOLD BY THE WIFE.

|
HER HUSBAND.
| noted English case that engaged the attentioh
| of the London courts on various occasions from
| 1871 to 1874, and which has already been before
tie Superior Court in this city, will come up for
hearing before Police Justice Herman TINS aiter-
noon This is the case of Rapsden against
Rsmsden, an action for alimony under the New
| York City Consolidation Act. which went INTO
| effect only five days ago. and under which wiIe
who can prove abandonment by her husband can
arraign him as a dsordery person bstore u poilce
magistrate and compel him to pay weekly allow
aucc to the Conmissone Of Charities aud Correo-
! tiOn for her support.
The plaintiff who is Jewess, tells most roman
\ tic story too romantic, her husband says
She savs that she is of wealthy family and has very
wealthy relatives In her youth, she asserts she was
married to DIR. Dtmar Flaur, who was physician 10
| Mohammed Ali. former Khedivc OF Egypt. AS Mrs.
! Flaur she was great fayOrte. and the ladies Vi
| Alexandria made her frequent and costly presents
of iewelry. When her husband died, aud she went
| as young widow to COnstaptinople, she had money
from her parents, relatives and husband amounting
to some ESQ, 900. In addition to this. she had the
! Jewels that tho kind Egy ptiaus gave her. Inc
CriInean war was in progress, aud young English
man, Charles Edward Ramsdcn, was with tho Eng
| lish army as q trader supplying it. in fact, with
coffee In 1856 in returnln- from the Crmea to Eng
! land he stopped at Constantinople Here lie says
! he met the fair widow in " casual " manner. he
did not meet any OF her family; he was not introduced
10 her-he Just met her. He told her that he was
son Of Sir Edward Charles Ramsden, OF No. llO
Putnam square, London.
| Young RamsdcG, the next year, after visit
| home, met Mrs Flaur by appointment at Cologne
and there, in July, 1887, hc married her at inc
| British Embassy. At this stage there Is an inter-
esing difference in the stories told by husband ana
wife. She says that at the time OF her marriage she
| had ut least EBO,OOJ; he says that sine hadn't
cent. lie treated her badly 50 badly that she al
to 20 home to her mother. who liyel in
! jerusalem Ramsden's story is that she abandoned
him In Paris. sho says that she Is about forty
| seven; he says SHE'S sIxtv, if she's Gay. In her
own statements made subsequently, at Berlin she
syea.s tha, she was born in 1929 They both Il rec
that they travelled Immediately after the marriage,
] and that the marriage was unhappy IRON the De-
| ginning. They went to Wiesbadcn, HomDuig,
Baden Baden, and OF her places Mrs. Ramsden says
that in all these places her husband led
most disrepuiable life, and that hc wasted
her resources IN gambling resorts AT homDurg, no
finally deserted her leaving her in such straits that
she was Obliged to sell her furniture and stii iur-
ther draw on her resources to pay her husDands
debts. Then she lived with him again. This time
| in Bloomsbury square, London this was III 1862.
Here he treated her badly, bringing dIsreputabIe
acouaintances to the house. She had
supplied him with money to carry on business
IN London; but business was not sutedto his turn
Of miud Two disreputablc aud vicious men,
| Parker aud Bolton, were much more to his mind
| than upright business men.
Tue GREAT EGYPTIAN soRcEREss SCHEME.
= In 1864. Mrs. RamsIen says. the climax was
reached. In this year tie Great Egyptian Sorceress
scheme was pu, before her by her husband. Tins
was q = heme of pretending to be ablc TO make tho
| old young again. All that was wanted by
| Ralnslcn proper soiceresS Nothing
was easier. The material was at hand.
All that was required was that Mrs. Ramslen
should blickcn her skin little and call herself the
| Great Egyptian Sorcercss Mrs Raulsden naturally
objected Her husband, however. wrote such an
advertisement as hc desired but she utterly refused
Ia have ANYTHING to do with it. Then in December
of that year her husband hid hcr two children and
kept them md f0r seven weeks. although she adyer
ised AMI sought Ugh and low for them. When she
! found them they were nearly starved
After All this crnel treatment her husband left
| h.r Mrs Rams len says, and took up with one
| Mary Walker. who was once . scnlcry maid In
1872 he registered q child by Mary Walker a. by.
| Mfs Rams,en, which caused siil Mrs. Rlmsden
great annoyance In October OF that year he as
saulted her at Forrest HI Funnel and beat her 70
I
snt4 against him being compelled to do so To obtain
support Tor herself, and she Won t1em all; where,
upon TO fled to Ncw-York. She did not hnd out
where he had gone until 1881, AMI tue way in
which she found out was In inns wise; -,
When Mr. RanSden started from London 50 hastily
h. left Mary Walker behind INN. Mary did not mind
so long ~ ho wrote regularly to her. This ho did
and some of his letters wcro subsequently plD-
lishrd in the English papers. Ia them he calls
Mary his "darug,' and refers to her IN endearing
terms He also states these letters that when no
has made money enough he will s'nd for her. But
~ 1851 he grew cool. lilo wrote to Mary regarding
the error OF their ways; he referred 10 his own
present poverty; he said that he was gong AVA TO
California. AID they must part. At his Mary was
wroth She went straight 10 Mrs. Ranisdcn, and
told her where her husband WAS. Mrs. Ransdcn
took the next steamer tor New-foTk. such Is her
story OF tho trouble.
MRS. RAMsDEN SENT TO MiLBANK PRISON.
Mr., Ramsden gave the following account to
TRIBUNE reporter yesterday OF onc portion OF his
wifes career. In November. 1876, Mrs.
Ramsden visited tho jewish Convaleseent
Home. South Norwood. and stated
that she had friend in whom she was interested.
Would the Home take her INF On lnquiry, it was
found that this friend WAS Mrs. Rams,en herself
yhereupon the Home though rather unwilling, did
take her ill., In a month, however she went away
Shortly after her departure. the matron of the
Home, Mrs Moses, received n letter from her, al
leginc that she had lost % 1,0OOfranc note. Mrs
Ramsden had given her purse, containing 1000
francs to Mrs Moses, and when II was returned
10 her there were oniy 200 francs IN IT, She charged
Mrs. Moses with stealing the remaining 500 francs
before the Grand Jury Of Surrey Sessions. and 4
true bill was found against her and her daughter
Mrs. Moses had powerful friends to back her up,
however ana in spite of witnesses swearing 10 tho
thelt and in spite much crcuInstantal eyldence.
sho was acquitted. She thon began to MAKE IA
qnirles on her own part ABOUT MIS- hVilslt' Inc
result was satisfactory ALI Mrs. Ramsden's wit
uesses admitted their perjury, suit was instituted.
Seri ant Baantne told the jury his opinion OF the
cast, and the jury unfortunately Tor Mrs Ramsden,
agreed with him, and she was sent to Mllbank
Prison for live years.
IL was when she had served her time that the
faithess Mary Walker told all that she knew to
Mrs Ramslen. The next steamer To New-York
brought an amount of litigation with 1T that has
lasted ever since. Mrs. kamsden found that her