Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1890-12-18
ACCUSED OF BlGAMy.
A New Phase In the Dougherty DI-
vorce Case.

A Petition From Mrs. Dougherty in
Which She Alleges That Her Husband
Already Had a Wife When He Married
Her.
The well-known Dougherty divorce case
wherein John B. Dougherty of this CITY Is
euelng for divorce from his wife, Annie
y. Dougherty, and for the custody of theft
children, assumed new phase in superior
court, Saturday morning.
Henry G. Conrad is the commissioner
appointed to take testimony in the case
and his return, coupled with yoluminous
report OF the testimony taken, was made
70 the present term OF court. It recon.
mended that the divorce be granted.
On Saturday, bin answer to this return,
Messrs. II. H. Ward and Walter Bacon,
counsel for Mrs. Dougherty, presented d
petition from her, in which she not only
prays that John B. Dougherty may not be
allowed the divorce he asks for, but that the
marriage existing between them may be
ennulled, at her request. The reason for
this request, as alleged by Mrs Dougherty
In her petition, is that at the time John B.
Dougherty married her he already had a
wife who was at the time living in Penn
eylvania.
Charles B. Lore. counsel for Mr.. Dough-
erty, objected to the reception of this petit
uon at this stage Of the proceedings and
asked for decree of divorce. The court
refused this request and ordered the case
70 be recommitted to Commissioner Con-
rad, with instructions to hear testimony
upon the point involved in Mrs. Dough-
erty's petition, but upon no other matters
a peremptory order was also made for the
return of the commissioner at the Feb
ruary term of court.
The object of the respondent in thus en-
deeavoring to have the marriage annulied
instead of a divorce granted to her husband
Is that such action. in addition to saving
her from the stigma Of being set aside from
her husband by divorce, will give her
the custody of her children and make them
legitimate offspring, on the ground that at
the time of the wedding ceremony she was
the only party competent to contract mar
rage. Counsel for Mrs, Dougherty refuse
to give any names, dates or facts in rela-
tlon to the allegation of bigamy against
Mr.. Dougherty, but claim to be able to
produce proof of the most convincing
character.
WHAT MR.. DouGHERTY SAYS.
, Mr.. John D, Dougherty, the plaintiff in
the case was seen by GAZETTE re-
porter Saturday, and asked about the biga-
nous charge contained in Mrs. Dough-
erty's petition,
There is not word of truth in it, 2 said
Mr.. Dougherty, ''When went into this
case, did so with what | considered per
fectly sound and thorough grounds. that
would sustain my application in every
point"
Mr.. Dougherty said that his first wife
died in the fall of 1871, and that his mar
riage to his present wife occurred in Octo-
Der 1874, three years later Il heard
intimations Of this charge he contin.
ued, while. testimony in the case was
being taken before the commissioner and
had witnesses ready then to prove that it
was false, but the other side failed to bring
it forward. Now after the case is practi-
cally closed, it is brought forward, solely
for the purpose of securing delay and add
ing to my annoyance and expense. But
am ready to meet the charge before the
commissioner and prove it to be baseless
falsehood"
Mr. pougherty is anxious to reach
contamination of the case, in order 10 re-
turn to his business affairs which suffer
greatly by his absence. He is civil en-
glneerr, engaged upon extensive railroad
America.