New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-08-27
THE FLACK PAPERS OPEN.
HOW THE WIFE SUED FOR DIVORCE.
SHE CHARGED THE SHERIFF WITH LIVING
WITH ANOTHER woMAY-HIs AssvMEL
NAME JAMES A. REYNOLDS-HE WAS

NAME JAMlo n. ftrsi NOLbo '''S
FORBIDDEN TO MARRY AGAIN.
The cat is at last oft OF the bag' in the Flacli
case. Late yesterday afternoon Robert A. Johnson
made an application TO Judge Allen, In the Court OF
Common Pleas for access 10 papers in the original
divorce proceedings. In spilt OF the recent order
declaring the proceedings Illegal the papers were Kept
Under SEAL and Judge Allen granted the application to
make them public because he deemed that the ends Oh
Justice would be best subservcd by so doing
Mrs Flack was extremely surprised when informed
that she hal absolutely divorced from nor nus
band She had herself applied for limltca divorce,
she said on the ground OF adultery eay last spring,
but declared that she had certainly been deceived II
an absolute divorce had boon procured. The exact
status OF tn, case has been something OF mystery,
therefore, up to the present time but by the publication
of these papers all Is made clear. Mrs tlack has de
MED that she appeared before Mr. Meeks tho referee
and from her statements made since the case was st
made public appears that all the papers In tho ac-
ton which she was required 10 signed were brought 70
her by her son. and that she put her signature 10 some
of them without knowing their contents.
On the presentation of Judge Aliens oider inc
clerk Of the court handed the papers to Mr
Johrson's r,plesentaiye, Douglas La igne Az
tachcd to the bundle. which bore the tito Mary H.
Flack vs. James A. Flack,r was the Affidavit OF Joseph
De Camp as to the service Of the summons on inc
Sheriff at the Court House in this city on April ~
last On the same day 1t was sworn TO before eyi-
yester T.. Nolan commissioner OF .d'eds There vas
alAp afndsvlt OF Benjamin Wright as attorney
for\ the plaintiff.
The complaint sets forth briefly that the plaintiff
was married TO tho defendant In this city "in or
about the year 1880; that the de cndant has been
living in adultery with Susan T. Reynolds since 1873
or whereabouts at No. $40 West Twenty ninth-st ana
slsewhere, without the knovlefg,, consent or con-
hivance OF the plaintiff and that d" tie latter has
1t~a.4s -xtl tha Nfc
aware Of his adultery. This was signed by Mary
f. Fqack and was sworn TO before Morris Wasel'
notary public, April 10, 1880.
The case was before Judge Bookstaver, In tho
Court Of Common Pleas on June 3, and was by MN
referred 10 Joseph Mecks, referee, on motion OF
BENJAMIN Wright, attorney for tie plain H. Mr.
Meeks qualified June IL, and his oath OF office
subscribed before Henry NJ. Jennings, commi-
sioner OF dc ,ds.
Following this document is a paper in the form
Of an affidavit purportng be the tctimony OF Ms.
Flack on her own behalf before the referee. Ii Is
simply the usual form Of Application setting forth
the grounds and saying that because of them she
demands an absolute divorce. This affidavit Is
dated Juno Ia.
Then follow afldavs signed by Margaret Smith
and Kate Cannon, all OF which, like that Of Mrs Flack
authenticated by Referee Meels. Margaret Smith
alleges that she had known the defendant James A.
Flack by the namo Of James A. Reynolds for nearly
fifteen years, and also that Susan L. Reynolds had
lived with him his wife in various parts OF this city
during that time She had seen the defendant IRE
qucnly in the apartments Of Susan T. Reynolds, with
his of and his slippers on, and they had always
been regarded as and wife In the several places
where she had known them TO live. This witness 5
evidence gwen Juno 90.
Kato Cannon said she lived at No. AZ West Thirty
fourh-st., whore she Kept boarding house. she had
known tho defendant the husband OF susan T. 10Y
nolds for some fifteen years. she first became a
auaintcd with them when they living in West
Twenty thild-st between Ninth and Tonth ayes. and
had known of thclr living together as nan and vito In
several other places. This was also dated Junc 20.
Two DAYS later the referee made his report TO tho
Court OF Common Pleas setting iorth that ne had COM
piled with all the legal requirements, ana that a, the
material facts In the complaint were iiiy posGd' o
granted, with such provision for her support as was
deemed proper. Judge Boohstaver Accordingly. on
motion Of Benjamin Wright, gave decree OF aosoIn,s
of tho referee and The failure OF the defendant 10
make any answer the complaint. The decree DE-
ciaIed Tie marriage OF James \. and Mary f.. Flaek
dissolved and gave the plainir the rghr 10 Tcmarry
during the life OF the dcicndaut but forbade him mat
privilege until after tho death OF inc WIG ne ha''
wronged. .. ,.,,. ,..ro., % ,ho
case last evening 10 the effect that MIS- fIach "ou
begin suit for limited divorce ana almony mat ING ING
Sbe,IG was not so rich as generally supposed, and
that the District Attorneys Office would take acuon
in the case when the Grand Jury snC a NC Ooe Stated
claim was made by Mrs F1ack IN the suit alleged IN
these papers for aimony or counsel fees The omls
decared and as Judge Bookstavcr evidently thought
when he decided that thesH proceedings were ",
regular and OF no binding force the whole case S
manipulated for tho sherihs accommodation. me ne
Az nIanntIons which are In order are eNpec'eu Wy
40 1awvers and others who have taken an Interest
In the case TO be uncommony in'"reS'"s