Daily globe., 1883-10-29

The latest phase in the Vermilye- Myers
scandal case was developed yesterday by
the beginning of q divorce suit by Mr..
Vermilye, asking to be separated from his
wife. The report that Vermilye's Chicago
retraction was obtained under duress while
he was under arrest seems to be borne out
by this later development. The following
is full copy of the complaint:
D. B. Vermilye VS.. Mary G. Vermilye--
The plaintiff above named for his COM
plant herein alleges that on the Both day
of april. 1879, at Orange, in the state of
New Jersey, the plaintiff and defendant
were married, and then and there became
husband and wife, and thereafter lived and
cohabited together as such husband and
wife up to and until the first day of May,
1882.
That this plaintiff is twenty-nine years
of age and the age of said defendant is
twenty i've years.
That there has been born and is now
living as the issue of said marriage one
child, William ID :, now OF the ege of three
and J. ;fyears.
Plail + further alleges that in March,
1881, he g. the said defendant came TO
the state -: Minnesota, of which said state
this plai9:T has ever elree been clIiZap
and resident, save such 5iInes as In the
course of bis business na has 6een tenn
porarily absent FROM tho state, and this
plaintiff is nov resident cf thu stats Of
Minnesota.
And plaintiff further alleges that ct the
city of st. Paul and IL the resi-
dence OF this plaintiff in the city
of ST. Paul and IL dive-s other places
at the city OF st. Paul unknown to this
plaintiff, the said defendant, between the
Ist day Of June 1881 ana the 81 day Of
Mays 1882, and at sundry aHa GiyaFs times
in the places aforesaid, bstaeen the dates
aforesaia. committed the crime Of adultery
with William Myers. he the said Myers be
ing then and there the chief quarter
master Of tue United States army for the
department of the Dakota; that said acts
of adultery so committed by said 6efen-
dant, with him, the said Myers, we're fre-
quent ana continuous during the dates
aforesaid, and at the places aforesaid, and
that other acts of adultery were also COM
mitted by aforesaid parties during the
period aforesaid at the city Of Chicago
and else where in the State of Illinois.
And plaintiff further alleges that be
tween tho 2d day Of May 1892 and up to
the time of the fling OF this complaint The
said defendant has committed the crime OF
adultery with the said Myers at divers
places within the state Of Minnesota and
city OF St. Paul; in the state of Illinois; in
the state of New York; il the
city of New York, in said
state and upon the continent
Of Europe and during ail of the SAID
period since the 2nd day Of Nay, 1882,
said acrs of adultery have been common
and frequent between th6 said defendant
and the said Myers.
And p,aintiif further alleges HAT he IS
informed and believes tho SAID defendant
and said Myers ere now living in adultery,
at some point in the states of New York or
NsW jersey, and have continued and are
now continuing their aforesaid relations.
And plaintiff farther alleges that he had
10 knowledge Of said acts of adultery or Of
any Of the same until on or about the
middle OF November, 1882, and that re has
not lived or cohabited with said defendant
since the knowledge of the commission. of
lid acts has come to this plaintiff. He
further alleges that none OF SAID acts of
adultery were done or committed with his
knowledge, consent or oonnivauce, and he
ayers that he has not condoned the same or
any uf the same.
This pllintiT further alleges that he has
ample ueans and property to enable him
to support his SAID child; that said child is
now in the possession and custody Of said
defendant, although said defendant has
heretofore promised and agreed to deliver
tae said child to this plaintiff, or 10 tile rel
atives of this plaintiff, and that said de
fendant is an unfit and improper pareon
TO have the care and custody Of said child
or the So peryision OF It's education.
That said plaintiff has ever since Iay,
1882, persisted in her sPid gduiterous in
tercourse with tbs said Myers and Is now
peIsistiug in the same; that in pursuance
of such intent she has abandoned the
homo Of said plaintiff, and has lived with
the said Myers, and IN diverse cities in
the UniLed STATES, ,soley at his expense, and
has accompanied him to Europe and lived
with hin there until she wGs compelled by
the plailtif TO return, no having followed
her 20 Europe for the purpose Of gaining
possession of said child; that she is en-
tirely under the influence and control Of
said Myers, who is also married
man and has Of least four children, and
that che has abandoned ali of her duties
to this plaintiff and to her said child for
the purpose of continuing said adulterous
intercourse with the said Myers, who on
his part permits her to continue, and he on
his part continues The same in reckless
disregard of his duty to his family and
contrary to law and good morals.
Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment
against the said defendant that the bonds
of matrimony now existing be forever
ana in all things dissolved, that said de-
fendant be decreed and adjudged to have
no right, title or interest by dover or
otherwise under the statutes of Minnesota
or otherwise, in or TO any of the property,
real or personal, of this plaintiff, and that
she be decreed and enioined from using
the name of this plaintiff and be compell-
ed to adopt and use her maiden name of
Mary G. Holmes.
That the personal custody snd care of
said child, William NJ, be awarded
to this plaintiff free aud
clear of all interference, right
or supervision henceforth to be ex-
ercised by said defendent over said child:
that the custody OF said child pending this
suit be awarded to the plaintiff in manner
and form as above prayed and that plain
tiff have such other and further relief and