National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-02-24
THREE UNHAPPY COUPLES.
Two Released From Marital Harness
the Third Fail to Prove u Case.


Justice Cox, in the equity court, ycster-
day had three cases Of unhappy married life
laid before him, In which the woes Of each
were depicted, and petition made to sever
the nuptial knot and bring peace and relief
to the disconnected mortals. In two in
stances favorable action was taken, but in
the third the chancellor failed to see that
the proof sustained the ground OF com
plant, and declined to grant the applica-
ton. The first TO meet success was VIM.
J. Cogan, who married Bridget Cunning
ham at the Jay Street Cathedral in Brook
Ign, N. Y, on Jan. 81, 1869. The bill OF
complaint was filed by Charles A. Elliot,
as attorney, on June 10, 1885, and after re-
citing the facts Of the marriage and q
short residence in the City Of Churches,
states that the couple removed to this
city, where they lived for more than ten
years. The husband asserts that he has
always demeaned himself as kind and af-
fectionate, but that skeleton crept into
his home Subsequent to their marriage
his wife became addicted to the excessive
use Of alcoholic liquors, and for the last six
years he charges that she has been an
habitual drunkard. The result Of prolonged
indulgence in ardent spirits had Its usual
disastrous effects, and as consequence
Mrs. Cogan has been twice sent to ST.
ebriate. The outcome was not encouraging
to reformation, as on her release, on each
occasion, the habit returned, even In more
aggravated form. As was to have been ex-
pected, by reason OF this habit she neglected
her wifely duties, treated her husband
in cruel and hard manner, made his
home and life miserable, and endan-
gered his health. In 1884 she gave
him a specimen of what she could ac-
,t,1t ,,ssh9 Ia Of hN m acl
ing into him with piece Of crockery ana
cutting his arm. Atthe time Of the Hanlan
and Courtney boat race on the Potomac
they had a quarrel, In which she proved
herself equal to the emergency, turned the
furniture into the street, and the husband,
to avoid similar treatment, beat hasty re-
treat, and left her In full possession OF the
premises. The proof submitted support
the charges preferred, and Justice Cox
directed decree granting the divorce as
prayed.
The second mistake made In entering the
matrimonial ranks, coming on for consider
alton, was that Of Alice II. Webster. On the 7th
of March, 1888, she was married to James
H. Thomas by Rev. G. c. Meador, of the
Fifth Baptist Church, at which time she
was 10 years of age. They first went to
live at the home of her rather, and four
weeks later to housekeeping In the same
house, Mr. Webster providing a portion OF
the furniture. II seems that their honey
moon was short, and last August she,
through her solicitor, Mr.. Charles A.,
Elliot, made application for divorce. In 1t
she states that soon after marriage her hus-
band exhibited toward her GOODNESS and dis
like, treated her in contemptuous man.
ner, ending II by deserving her June 90, 'S3,
and remaining absent ever since. He con-
tributed nothing toward her maintenance
and support before he took his departure,
and II was not expected he would subse
| quently. The proof sustaining the allega,
lions, the Judge granted the petition for di.
vorce, also permission for her to resume
| her maiden name.
The disappointed applicant was Estha
| Jean Schafer, who wanted release from
| all marital relations with Charles Franci,
| Schafer. Rev. d. +. Forrest, assistant rector
Of Trinity Church, Joined them in the
bonds of wedlock April 90, 1870, and they
lived together until March, 1888, when thu
husband concluded to emigrate, and, moi
wanting the company Of his wife, left he
behind, where she has been ever since. Ill
did little toward her support before tht
desertion, and, as was to be expected, ha
done nothing since. For several years III
had been addicted to the excessive use o.
Intoxicating liquors and been frequent.
"drunk," and the money which should havI
gone toward the maintenance Of his wifi
was used to degrade himself.
The case was presented by William A
Cook as solicitor, but Justice Cox failed u
find the proof Of desertion satisfactory AMI
declined to grant the decree.