New-York tribune., 1886-01-05
DID SHE MARRY MGL'
REFsREE AND JUSTICE DO NOT AGREE.
A CASE WITH SINGULAR FEATUREs-Nor CEHIAiN
As TO UHR RELATIONS.

A CASE WITH SINGULAR FEATUREs-'NoT CEHlAiS
AS TO HER RELATIONS.
The question whether Laura or Rose Ahna
Mellep who claims to have been married In Brooklyn III
1856 to William W. Houghton as his iawiui "iie' wa"
decided adversely hcr by referee Justice Andrews
I'm the Supreme Court Chambers yesterday directed tnat
the case be placed before jury and refused to cohr
tho referees report Her story Is that ai'or
they were married they lived together III
the South until the war broke out, "ne"
he entered the Confederate service. SHe
was afterward told that he had been killed, but TWO
years ago found him living in Mobile with another
woman whom he had married. She had him arrestei'
and he produced jdd gnent OF the supreme Court IN
this city anuung his marriage TO her on the ero"hu
that under the name Of Rose Ann Mullen she had mar
ricd James McGlynn In Brooklyn in 1904 ana lhaI tae
latter was living she married oughton two years
after She denied this, but the referee appointed Dy
Justice Donohue year reported that 1t was So that
ber true name was Rose Ann McGlynn and that the
Judgment annulling HOughtons marriage WIN her nus'
Before the referee Mrs. Open testified that the de-
fendant in Mr. HoughtoUs suit TO have the marriage ses
hnsband was McGynn. William b. Lathrop swore that
he sa her married McGlynn in July, 1851 Inc ue-
fendant, the other hand, sTore that wien sue nai
rio d Houghton she "aed Laura McGlynn because
she had lived with relatives of that name anu ta1 sue
was never married before abe married Houghton: IL
was In evidence that no william H. Lathrop ever n'ea t
at No. 1876 West rwentysNth,s where inc wtne9 m
that name had that he lived. HoughOn testneu
that she had admitted that she was mlrrleu 10 nio
Gynn and wanted MN 10 give hcr money " ~ "a
divorce from him. lie lived with her several years alter
that Elizabeth Mullen dop0sed thtt she was tho W We
fendams sister and that the latter had told er tn ne
had married McGiynn and that HoughtOn knew 1t when
he married her Mrs Van Brunt. also claiming to be
her sister Margaret Lewis. VINO salu sue WIS nei
cousin and Ed ward Mullen. husband of Elizabeth sah
that they had heard of the marriage to MeGynh Dut
had personal knowledge of II. record OF marriage
between Rose Ann Mullen ana james McGiynh IN oi'
Jamcss Cathedral Brooklyn. III 1924, was prOance1,
Bridget Mullen Uhe maiden name Of Mrs. van BfunU
was signed 1t witness bnt the
latter that she had personal knowledge OF It,
Hv tlc
Inc Defendant admitted that her real name was Rose
Ann Mr. Gilmore and the alleged SISTERS ana cousins
swore that her name Rose Ann. but Mrs Mullen
said that twenty years the defendant toll her thaI
she had changed her Laura The defendant Ge-
cared that she not certain that the witnesses VINO
claimed be her relations were So ana sid sue hau
never admitted that she hal married McGlynn
In denying the motion TO confirm the report,
Justice Andrews said he thought tiat she
had hren known Mt some time al Rose Ann,
rage Laura lie says the testimony leaves ln'oSeu
in much doubt the question whether she married Nc
Glynn The connection of Orson A. House. tho lawyer
VIII obtained the aHnument with the case cast s,spl-
con the evidence OF Iatlrop. who hai not been
found n dilgrnt search. Tho Tact that HOUSE ulht
n regular business Of procuring divorces ny means OF
manufactured testimony was 40 notorious that tue
could not ignore It.. IL was highly lnproDaOIe
that the defendant should nave nadr sieh
10 Mrs. Open and HOughtOn, aud that no
lived with heraerwari ana that she shohu
have lived with him under such circumstances openly
when her relatives lived II strange also
that OF three alleged relatives knew OK her al
legged marriage TO McGynn except ny hearsay. IL was
singular that she should have the audclty 10 pursue IN"
n sac hal acknONlcisru Hcf
perjure herself IN lhcse pro
cGcdiugs IL true. t wOuli be unfortunate lor
the plaintiff II the Judgment 10 ths action Shou DC hc
aside for though his second marriage was i~ul IL tue
defendant had another husbaI lNng when Ne married.
her, tho iud.ment was a really ani available shirlI
AGAINST the defendant. IT, the other Maud, sue hau
been wronged her wrong should be redresscd and the en-
tire question should 20 To jury.