Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1889-08-20

The Flaok Divorce Case Paral-
leled in New Jersey.
THEFRAUDULEETDEoREEREVOKED

moninl Knot without His Tifesa
Knowieags = The cenrt os Chnncery
Annuls the Dscrec-strange Marriage
% Camden couple In Phlladeiphin.:
TnENroS, Aug. 20.-The Flack di-
vorce case, which Is attracting 50 much
attention in New York. has parallel
case which has just been discontinued
in the court Of chancery Of this state.
It has been generally believed that Jer-
sey justice was too vigilant TO permit
such fraud TO go undetected, but this
seems not TO be always true. In the
case referred to Oscar ID. Britton pro-
cured divorce from his wife and then
married a rich widow before. ID IL
claimed, his wife knew anything about
it or had time TO make any defense.
The Initial Proceedings.
In March. 1887, Oscar L. Britton APP
piled for divorce from his wife on the
ground that she had heen unfaithful to
her marriage vow. One Albert " Dud-
ley was made correspondent, and il was
stated that the whereabouts of his wife
were unknown. The sheriff of Camden
county, who was given the subpoena to
serve upon her, returned 1t, stating that
he was unable to find her, and that he
was informed that she lived in Pennsyl-
vania. The application was published
in one of the Camden papers, and the
matter was referred to a special master
to hear the case and report.
The defendant Not Represented.
When the matter came up the de-
fendant was not represented in court
The first witness called was Albert v.
Dudley, the correspondent, who lived in
Philadelphia. He gave a history Of
various meetings with Mrs. Britton and
their relations. He swore that he only
knew Mr.. BIitton by hearing his wife
speak of him. Nathan Perkins, once
interested in the Ridgway house, Phila-
delphia, testified that he frequently saw
that she frequently called at the hotal to
see him.
Bridegroom Mt 15.
Oscar L. Britton on the stand gave an
interesting account of their wedding,
according TO which story he was, at the
time, only Is years of age. He and
some friends were enjoying wine sup
per at his wife's mothers house one
night when it was suggested that he
should marry the daughter. While
under the influence of liquor, and
scarcely realizing what he did, the wit
ness said he was married to the girl at
2 o'clock in the morning. This was in
Philadelphia. He only lived with his
wife two years, and then he went to
Camden TO reside. He alleged that she
refused to accompany him.
Following this testimony were other
witnesses who testified to the character
of the wife, her alleged intimacy with
men Of bad repute. etc. The master re-
viewed the case, and recommended that
a divorce be granted. Ola final hear
ing a decree Of divorce was entered.
The Divorced WIFe's Protest.
Six months later NJ. b. Tayl0s, OF
Camden, filed petition, on behalf Of
Mrs. Britton, asking that the decree be
set aside on the ground that it was OBJ
tanned through fraud. The petition al
legged that the whole scheme was plot
on the part of the husband to obtain a
divorce. The wife set up that she al
ways lived at 1247 Poplar street; that
her husband resided there with her for
two years, and knew at the time he APP
piled for the divorce where she could Be
found. No copy of the order Of publi-
cation was served upon her.
She denied that the marriage was per-
formed in the manner stated by her hus-
Dd00s DUb bE4Ab ne EDUTIEQ MGE Tor sew
eral years, and that her mother refused
to let her marry for a time because of
their extreme youth. She finally con.
sented, and they were welded on the
night in question. Her husband was
not drunk and they had no wine supper.
She denied Dudley's story, and declared
that she never met him, and limited that
her husband got some woman to assume
her name.
The Decree Revoked.
The petition was backed by number
Of affidavits and was 50 strong that Vice
Chancellor Bird opened the decree and
gave Mrs. Britton an opportunity to
plead to the original suit. An answer
was fled, but the suit Jagged on until
Saturday, when the rule was entered
dismissing the petition for divorce.
This ends the case in the court OF
chancery. and the wrong unwittingly
done by the court In granting q divorce
without the wife's knowledge has been
righted.
The husband, It Is said, has fed. Two
weeks after the final decree for divorce
was entered. which made him free
man, he married rich widow and for
q time lived In Camden. When he
heard that application would be made 10
Fnnr1nn the xfVnexsa rtV,rsrexrr4sxt<vs H.. 1F&