The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-01-21
ANOTHER SARAH ALTlIEA HILL.
The Peculiar Relations of Mr.. Thomas s..
Reynolds and Miss Julia GOdfrey.

UTICA, N. Y, Jan. 20.-For long time Cos
sips have been whispering about the story of a
young woman named Julia A. Godfrey, who
claims to be the wife of Richard S. Reynolds, a
wealthy bachelor of forty five. The story came
before the public through motion before Judge
Merwin to set aside confession on the part of
the woman that she had no right TO call herself
Mrs Reynolds. Reynolds was formerly
senior partner in the firm of Reynolds
Brothers, shoe manufacturers. Miss Godfrey
was an employee in his factory, and claims
that Mr. Reynolds addressed her with view to
marriage, and that on Nov. 81, 1881, did marry
her as Senator Sharon married Sarah Althea
Hill by signing jointly with her paper ac-
knowledgng one another as husband and wife.
She alleges that the matter was kept secret at
his request. Reynolds retired from the firm of
Reynolds Brothers in 1870 and subsequently
went to Chicago. Desiring to dispose of some
Utica property, he encountered the claim that
he had wife, whose signature to the deeds
would be necessary. He alleges that though
he had heard of Miss Godfreys claims he
had never concerned himself about them
till then She had published herself the
City Directory a3 Mrs Julia Reynolds and was
using his name on all occasions. She refused to
desist and he began suit for an injunction re-
straining her from using his NAME and decree
adiudging that she was not his wife In the an
swer she swore she was married, already
related The matter was to have been tried last
September, but before the date fixed she with
drew her answer and Judgment was entered Sep
TENDER l6, 1884 The matter is reopened, through
the present motion to set aside the judgment on
the allegation that the answer was withdrawn
under duress, and without her counsers
knowledge. In her affidavit Miss Godfrey
alleges that Reynolds compromised her by
continued attentions and in signing the alleged
contract assuring her 1t valid marriage;
that he carried it with him to Chicago whittier
she went November %, 1881; that Reynolds met
her and took her to the Atlantic Hotel, where
they remained as husband and wife till Novem-
Der 90; that he there burned the marriage con-
tract and told her she must go back to Utica till
he had closed some business with his brother,
who would make trouble if he knew of the mar
riage that she had returned to Utica
that to her written demand to be
recognized as his wife, Reynolds replied, denying
she had any claim on him. In conclusion, she
says she assented to the Judgment of Septem
Der, 1884 under threats of Reynolds that he
would use his great wealth to crush her, and in
consideration of 500, and the following pager:
II hereby acknowledge that the paper which
destroyed at the hotel in Chicago, ETC., was
marriage contract between myself and Julia A.
Godfrey, and that we lived together as husband
and wife; also that the confession which / COM
posed and wrote over her name is false r. S.
Reynolds"
In his answer Mr.. Reynolds says the foregoing
paper is q forgery, are other papers
in the plaintiffs possession. alleged to have
been signed by him. He alleges that
this is effort to blackmail him,
and denies that he was ever married by any
form whatever. He submits affidavits of per-
sons present when the withdrawal of Septem-
Der was signed, showing that she signed volun-
tarily. Time was asked to secure the attend
ance of witnesses, which the court granted.
The matter, as it has been discussed excites
variety of views The weight of opinion is that
it is a bold attempt to secure a share in Mr.
Reynolds wealth. The woman has no attraction
of form or feature to render her story probable
and Reynoldss readiness to go into court is
counted in his favor.