Mexico weekly ledger., 1883-07-12
HADDINGHAM VS.. wADDIsGHAM.


son, in the Circuit CoArt Of
. Assrain Cesnty.
When this case was called Tuesday,
j. Med. Trimble, ESQ.,, in behalf Of
the plaintiff moved to strike out all
that part of defendants answer that
was merely recriminating. Ali accu-
sations derogatory to . -marriage cen
tract against defendant had been
withdrawn, and Che issue to be tried
turned upon whether defendant, at
the time eff her alleged marriage to
plaintiff, had a living husband, one
Gavin, from whom she had not been
divorced. If she hsd such husband,
then there could have been no legal
marriage between defendant and
plaintiff. Defendant under such cir
cumstances could not be a party to q
marriage contract, and there could
not have been such breaches Of one,
on the part Of plaintiff as is alleged
by defendant, and allusion To them
in her answer was immaterial and
improper.
Judge Forrist, upon the part Of
defendant, stated that in her answer
there was application for such rene
dies as the court has power to afford,
and the recriminations introduced
into it Of neglect, assault and adul.
terry, were necessary, under the stat.
utes, to the courts giving what was
asked for.
Judge Robinson then inquired, il
defendant contemplated in her ask
ings a divorce from plaintiff, IT, il
should turn out she had been legally
married to him, and, upon being told
she did, said that demand must APP
pear in the answer, otherwise he would
order the recriminations complained
of to be stricken out.
The answer was amended, and thu
defendants attorneys, not being ready
to proceed, asked for q eoatiauance,
| which was denied.
MI. Trimble SAID the plaintiff ex.
pected to prove that the defendan,
at the time of her marriage to him
was the lawful wife Of Charles r.
Gavin; that previously she had been
also married to and divorced from
one b. G. Durham, and represented
to plaintiff that no impeachment ex.
listed to a marriage with him and
that after living with her about i.
year, he discovered she was not
suitable person to be his wife, an6
sent her to her native state, Vermont
where he provided for her support
that defendant returned to st. Louis
and plaintiff having discovered thai
her first husband was still living
brought this suit.
Judge Forrist replied that defend.
ant expected to show the falsity Of
many of the above statements; she
had when very young assumed thu
name of Gavin, and had lived in hi.
family, but not as his wife /; neither haf
she been married to him; after hel
divorce from Durham, defendant haG
married Waddingham, who was in
strumental in obtaining the divorce
and had paid the expenses Of it
when the war broke ont he sent hel
to Vermont for safety, and promised
to join and live with her there; the
whole charge of her being married tt
Gavin was an aftertkought, and wa.
not alluded to in plaintiffs first ap
plication for divorce.
Dispositions by Isaac r. Gavin. A
Des. Elliott, NJ. Van Upton, 1. Dt
Mask, James Burgess and B. Nc.
Donald were read, testifying thai
Charles r. Gavin and Paulina Has.
kins, or Hulett, as she was varionsly
called, lived at Detroit as a married
couple, and were regarded by the
circle in which they moved as mar
and wife. B. Mcdonald also stated
that after the arrest of Gavin, de.
PENDANT lived in a house of ill-fame,
and told him her husband had de.
serted her. He knew Gavin and
Paulina Gavin well, and had seen
them in bed together.
After recess, Mr.. Trimble intro
duced the affidavit of Mrs. E. Barrett,
of st. Louis, stating that defendant
bad told her she had married one of
the Gayins, that was sent to the pen
itentiary, whom she had not heard
from since he left there, but whom
she believed was dead. The affidavit
of Charles r. Gavin, the alleged
husband of the defendant was also
offered, and ruled out. Afidayits
were read from B. Mcdonald, C. T.
Allen, Alex. Des Elliott and Robert
Marsh stating that Charles R. Gavin,
who had been alluded to as the hus-
band Of defendant, was alive. VIM.
Waddingham, plaintiff, then took the
stand, but, after showing that he was
married to defendant in 1858, after
she had secured a divorce from Dun
ham, and that he had paid nine thou
sand dollars for q home for her in
Vermont, was stopped from divulging
what defendent was alleged to have
communicated to him concerning her
marriage with Charles R. Gavin.
This closed plaintiffs evidence.
Mrs. Paulina Waddingham was
then introduced, and testified that