Telegram-herald., 1886-06-20
DON'T MOTHER NE"
The Sensational Story Told by
Sam Clay II His Divorce Suit
Rl8aIEl i1u, not ysU8 CHILDREN
The Answer OF the Defendant in the
Divorce Suit of Ci4f IS. Clay
ne Claims Undus Influence
t7as Seen ENsrfed Over
his Wfa.

Tao o. .hses months ago Frances A
Rutherford Clay l.ed a bll af complaint ia
the superior Coer praying lor a divorce
d0m her husband Sam D Cay An ab-
ssr4cg sas published al tAe lme Of the ai-
ing. 0n April IS last, The defendant. a.ed
an answer. the contents OF which have nor
been paallshed. oWiag 70 the i4ci lh4t tne
ofizinal bili was taken from tAs flies aud
has not yet been returned. TIE following
however Is verbatim copy Of the de.
iendant answer.
s.ale of Nj -higan.-The Superior Court of
Grand Rapids. Ia tnancery.
Frances A. Rutherford Clay,
Complainant
samuel D. Clay
Defendant
The answer ol samuel d. Clay deiend-
ant, % The hili oi complaint "a frauC-s A.
Rutherford Clay, complainant.
the defendant ~ ana a. al times here
after, saving 10 him ,elf all and All MANNER
ot nsnenl Or adyan age ol exception, 90
OtleFw lse thai can, or N ly 0o Aa4 or ia1eu
10 the many erIulS, upc HGaiuties ana imler
iecuons Ia the said Oil contained for
AiloNS- NAAtANNDf VI ~ - AAAAAN-4 Al4AANN -
this defendant Is advised, il is material OF
necessary Tor him 10 make answer TO. an
swering, saith.
Flrst-rhat he admits tha, on OF about
the 2Jth day of August, A. d. ISIS, be utter
married wiki the complainant Frances 4.
Rutherford Clay, bat denies that they lived
together as husband and Vile until Seplen-
Der ION. lS,5.
Sec0nd-rnis defendant further answer
ing, denies that he has since said marriage
become and now is an habituai drunkard
ami has been such for two years
last past. That while he has used intoxlcal-
ing liquors since SAID marriage. and Occas-
lOnaliy 10 excess, he has not used them in
any greater quantities or to any
greater excess than before sa'd
marriage, and especially during
the two years prior 10 said marriage while
he was paying his addresses 10 complain
ant. and of which fact she had full knOwl-
edge. That after the engagement of mar
riage between the complainant and defend
ant she was with him many times when he
was under the influence of liquor, and upon
one occasion, came To his house and took
him for drive, and urged him not 10 break
oil his engagement OF marriage with her, a.
he informed her he intended 20 do saving
that she bad no objection 10 men who
drank moderately; that they were generally
the best kind of men, and also said that the
defendant reminded her of a friend
IN Cory, Pennsylvania, by the
name of Pickett. who although
in the habit of getting. drunk, was
brilliant, and her style of man and an
able physician; that he used TO be called her
patient. And also after said marriage. she
continued her association and friendship
with said Pickett. and shortly after said
marriage she wrote defendant on the Sth
/ day OF November, 1878, from Cory, Penn
/ syivania, where she was then visiting as
/ follows: My friend Pickett Is on spree,
/ 50 he may not call and l will not be able %
/ see him.
And also before said marriage. she told
defendant that she was not afraid of his
drinking TO excess, as she could influence
/ him in that regard, that she had used her
influence over one of her dearest and best
/ friends IN Grand Rapids, who was a very
hard dIinker. and bad nearly reformed him
: that ne anu Enos lmeauing Enos Putnam
were the only tF3 men Who came into her of
/ fee without knocking; that she would 90 rid
ing with him nights. and agreed 10 meet him
/ in New York ID attend Professor Huxley s.
/ lecture, but be got drunk, and could not
| md her number in New York. That by
/ these and other instances, related bv her
she caused defendant 10 believe that a-soci-
+ ullQlo VIII lllril III tue nAlll Oh uillAlilI
was not 50 very offensive 10 her.
And this defendant further answering
says, that complainant is practicing physi-
clan and was employed in his family for o
/ long time prior TO said marriage and knew
his condition and his circumstances pecu
niarily and otherwise long before sao
| marriage That at the time of ma rriage
and for some years before she had hel
office and sleeping room IN a block on
Ottawa street. in the city of Grand Rapids
aud took her meals usually al EnOs Put
. man 5 and cared for him and his family
That the said Putnam was very mucf
opposed to the marriage between complain
I ant and defendant, and that continually
I since said marriage. he has by different
I ways and methods influenced and encour
/ aged the complainant % neglect and Gisre
gard her duties TO defendant and family
That shortly after said marriage she tol,
/ defendant that see wished he would no
/ come into her Office during business hours
as 10 would embarrass patients bat at th'
same time allowed Putnam aud other meu
/ free access at all times. That the complain
/ ant has allowed herself to be influenced an(
has followed the advice aud regarded th,
wishes OF the said Putnam. against IN,
protest and entrealies of defendant An,
that the complainant. as defendant 4
informed and believes. filed tier bill o
complaint ln TINS cause at the solicitation q
said Putnam. for the purpose Of aiding bin
IN his defrusriu.a a certain suit now peulin.
against him. in which this defendant
plaintiff aud that II divorce IS granted sh,
can return 20 her former place in his lani. s.
and divorce is not sought ior amy aliege,
cause seq forth in 0m9lainants bliI
Defendant further SAWS Thar heis iaFve
bv profession. AMI lor the uasf ten years ha
E uranfrraI sfrfn.. EsfIV iu fftn on1rf. of fhf