The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-11-27
A FAlTHLESS WIFE
LEAVES THE CITY WITH HER AL.
LEGED PARAMOUR.
The Sequel Of Recent Divorce Pro.
ceedingS-A Full History
Of The tase.

Mrs. Carrie Aiken, nee Mscombsr
defendant in divorce case decided
against her shout ten days ago, left the
city Thursdav night in the compsny
of Fred S. Bishop, the correspondent
in the case, and we'll known man
about town. 1t was rumored tat the
departing couple had been unifed 10
marriage before their departure, but
as no license had been taken out in
their names in the County Clerks
office, there is probably no foundation
for the II port.
THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS
were instituted in May, 1886, by o. M.
s. Aiken, the defeI dant's husband,
who is employed IS bookkepsr by
Jones B os 4 Co a thriving firm OF
cotton buyers, whose office ia at No.
80 Madison street. The petition on
e e in the case slleges that o. M. s.
All en- and Carrie Macomber were
married at New Bedford, Mas April
%, 1877, and that they removed to
Mem ohis on the goth Of October, 1883.
In September, 1885, the hu. band dis
C ,veIed iha. HIS " fe's affec iors had
become aliepaied from him by Fred \.
Bis OF, who secretly visited his house
while he was at work, and dishonored
his home That ssid B shop slso
fr' quently met corp ainsLt's wife by
appoint ment 1T a mouse on Nor roe
street." house charged in the petit
ton as beirg of bad repute and an
assign alton house at the time of the
q ing Of the p tltlon. On the 9th Of
April complainant heard that his wife
was at the house indicated, snd acting
upon the information, he went
there and found her, and took
her away, notifying her that he would
apply for n divorce. She replied, tays
the petition, that he could have OIL
vorce, provided he did not allege
but would charge abandon.
ment l is also charged that she Wis.
ed house on j. ffeson street, and
tn re committed adultery. There are
alt o charges in the petition that she
was int mate with other men besides
Bishop, whose names complainant
could Dol give. On the Esd OF Sep.
tember, 1856,
MRS. AIKEN FILED HER ANSWER,
denying ali the charges, protesting
that the house on Monroe street. was
above su'picion, that she had visited
It frequently in the comp ny OF her
husband, and that Bthop was vie t.
ur al her house with her hut bands
CONF cut. That he did not take her
away from the house in QUESTION, and
hat he never notified her that be
would apply for divorce, but on pre-
eDse that he was ordered 10 Helena
ard thence to New E. gland, got her
% leave for the East 10 advance, paid
ler fare, kisted Der goodbye, and then
,ook advants GO Of her absence to apply
or divorce.
THE TRIAL WITH CLOSED DOORS
t, stlmony that satisfied the
,ourt Of Mrs. Aiken's guilt, Dotwith-
the fact that defendant was
present in penon and by counsel, and
given every opportunity 10 reiute the
lemsgine testimony produced against |
Der. The court granted MIR. Ait en- a
lecree of absolute divorce. A few
lays ago Mrs. Aiken appealed from
he decree
WHO Is RAYMoNDP
Among tie things that frat caused
Mr.. Aiken to suspect his vile was the
ntercep ion OF ]. tier addressed 10
lis vile, and which reads as follows:
MEMPHIS, April q, 1885.
DEAR MADAN-I frost you will pard, the
bert / have taken in addressing you this |
ote. ] have been told you a'e unlaDp ly |
iarried, ise myself. judging from your
right and cheer vi face ana mann er, have |
oDcluded 10 wr' 10 you asking an intervi ",
n he hope hat We cen tolve the problem |
nd both no appv. have no 10, you and |
our little Indy fri nd many, many times,
nd that has nov gone TO Iincidnatii, and |
ndered If you was really as happy as you |
eemed. Avail ing your reply. | am, truly |
ours, E. U RAY AOND. !
Raymond is evidently fictitious
Isme, assumed for the occasion, no
ucn person being noted in the diIec-
ry. The writing is alo clearly dis
used. Ms Aiken is brunette, Of
Medium blight and shspely flu e, and
errs snong resemblance to Fay
70 1pleton.