Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-10-26
ESPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE DISPATCH,


PHILADELPHIA, October 25.-The facts
of remarkable divorce suit. in some re-
spects closely paralleling the Flack case,
and showing a strange looseness in the ad.
ministration of the divorce laws of New
Jersey, came to light to-day. On
Friday of last week Annie
NJ. Eldridge, through her counsel,
James H. Heverin, made application to
Judge Bregy, in the Desertion Court, for an
order upon her husband, w. H. Eldridge,
q well-known advertising agent of this city
and Camden, for the payment of $40 week
for the support of herself and infant child.
At the hearing, it appeared in evidence
that there was suit for divorce brought by
the wife then pending in the New Jersey
Court of Chancery, and Judge Bregy con-
tinued the hearing until to-day, in order
that he might be then more fully advised of
the nature and status of the New Jersey pro-
ceedings.
A PRIOR DIVORCE.
When the case was called to-day, and,
after Mr.. Heverin had informed the Court
what he proposed to prove on behalf OF the
wife, counsel for the husband produced a
certified copy of decree of divorce. signed
by the Chancellor of New Jersey, dated
Judge Bregv at once said that unless it
could be shown that this decree, apparently
issued by court of competent jurisdiction
in another State, had been procured by
fraud. or was not genuine, he would under
no circumstances make an order in the mat
ter but pending further information upon
these points he continued the case for a
week.
The story. as detailed in evidence
l. e - 4 -.
bis speech in court, and later by his re-
lation to a representative of THE Dis
PATCH, was this:
THE FALLING OUT.
W. h. Eldridge and Annie NJ. Stuart
were married in Camden, n. J., some six
years ago. They were both residents OF that
CITY. and lived there together happily until
some time after the birth of little girl, two
years since, when Eldridge, OH a visit to
Hadd0n6eld, became acquainted with
Fannie C. Hagar. of Richmond, Me-, who
was spending the summer there. He be-
came evidently enamored of Fannie, and
letters frequently passed between them,
one of which, discovered in her husbands
pocket bY Mrs. EIdridge, early in 1888,
opened her eyes to his infdelity and de-
'stroyed her happiness.
On February last Eldridge and Miss
Hagar registered at the Bingham House, In
this city, as John Marshall and wife, and he
subsequently lodged with her in hotels in
New York and elsewhere as man and wife.
lBy this time Mrs. Eldridge was so con-
'vInced of her husbands intimacy with the
Hagar woman that she accused him of it.
and ,
HE CONFESSED
his transgressions Subsequently he, by
threats. compelled her to begin a suit for
divorce from him in New Jersey, he agree
ing not only to pay all expenses, but to give
her S12 week for the remainder of her life
and give good real estate security in 81 900
for the payment of that amount. His prin-
cipal threat was that if she did not consent
to this he would leave her and go to Cali
fornia or to some other locality
where she could not reach him,
and that she and her child would
then be penniless, and his mistress actually
wrote to the injured wife long letter,
dated and postmarked Richmond, Me-, in
which she implored her to comply with her
husbands wishes?
Proceedings for divorce were therefore be-
gun on behalf of Mrs. Eldridge in July last.
in Camden, H. B Peck, of that city. being
paid and retained by Eldridge as his wiie's
counsel against himself The suit was re-
ferred TO master, before whom Mrs. Ed
ridge testified SIS to her marriage and
HER HUSBANDS CONFESSION
Of his unlawful intimacy with Fannie C.
Hagar, whose name was, however, sup
pressed in the original libel for divorce, the
correspondent being there alluded to as
"party to the libelant unknown."
Mrs. Eldridge was compelled to consent
to the concealment of the identity of the
woman who had wronged her, by the threats
of her husband TO cease paying her the
weekly sum agreed upon, and she states
that when she subscribed her name to the
libel she told Lawyer Peck that she did it
only because of he threats and coercion of
her husband. Peck went on, all the same,
the balance of the evidence against Eldridge
being, it is alleged, furnished by himself.
Early in this month Mrs. Eldridge re-
tanned Mr.. Heverin as her counsel, and at
his instance she wrote to Peck instructing
him to discontinue the proceedings. Peck
answered that he would do so for $50 and a
brother of Mrs. Eldridge accordingly called
upon him with the money, but Peck had
CHANGED HIS MIND.
refused the money, and repulsed every ap-
peal for a discontinuance, and on Monday
last, which was. of course, since the deser-
ton proceedings began here, it is shown by
the record accompanying the decree of
divorce, witness was examined in Cam
den before the master in divorce, on behalf
of Mrs. Eldridge, when, in point of fact,
she was entirely ignorant of any meeting to
be held or any witness to be called.
A REMARKABLE FACT.
It is asserted for this that both Eldridpe
and his wife were at the beginning of the
divorce proceedings residents of this State.
The proceedings in the desertion court here
were brought because, while it was true that
Eldridge had in the main paid the weekly
allowance to his wife, as he agreed, that
these payments were subject to his caprice,
and there was no security that be would
continue to pay them, and it was in order
that he should give security for future paw
ment that she had him arrested and brought
before Judge Bregy.
But the most remarkable feature about
this alleged decree of divorce is that it is
dated October %, 1889. On October 2, 1889,
Mr.. Heverin wrote to Alexander 7. McGill,
Chancellor OF New Jersey, saying that he
(Mr. Heverin) was informed that there was
a proceeding, "Eldridge VS.. Eldridge in
divorce" before him; that the libelant
Mrs. Annie M. Eldridge, was a resident of
Philadelphia, and that she had insti-
tuted the proceedings under the threats
and coercion of her husband, and
in Ignorance of ner rights, and
that her counsel of record, II. B. Peck, was
i the employ of her husband. Mr.. Hever-
in therefore, asked that the proceeding be
discoutiuued until Mrs. Eldridge had an
onnortuuity to establish the truth of their
assertions. The answer to this dated New
vark. October "a, 1889, and signed "Alex.
II McGilI. Chancellor Of the State of New
% -. urT hava SAINT vnur 1aftar ..