Los Angeles herald., 1891-04-10
SHE CHARGES FRAUD.
MRS. LA PIERCE NUMBER ONE OBJ.
JECTS TO A DIVORCE.
The Ex-Cordon Bleue of the California
Club Sued by Colorado Wholesome
Sensational Charges.

A sensational suit was commenced in
the superior court of this county yester-
day, by the filing of complaint by Mrs.
Marie M. La Pierce, who seeks to set
aside the decree of divorce obtained by
her husband; Armand La Pierce, some
time ago, on the ground that it was pro-
cured by fraud, and is therefore null
and void.
In this document, which is very vol
luminous. Mrs. La Pierce tells the fol-
lowing story of her wrongs: In Sep
TENDER, 1883, the plaintiff, who was in
the millinery business, and carried a
stock worth $4,000, was married to the
defendant at Leadville, Colorado. From
that. time until May, 1884, she
loaned her husband various sums
of money, amounting in the ag-
gregate to nearly $4,000, and prior
to their marriage he had borrowed $2527
from her. They had lived together
happily Tor about three months, when
the defendant told his wife that he
would have to leave Leadville, as he
was involved in an intrigue with girl,
and was threatened with trouble if he
remained in the state. Accordingly on
January B, 1854, it was agreed that La
Pierce should go away, and locate
home for his wife at some place beyond
the reach OF the girl. He left for Texas,
taking with him all his wife's money,
and leaving her nothing but her stock
of millinery and some houses and lots in
7 oaHyyil1o 10 Al
main long in the lone star state, but Jour-
neyed to Arizona, Illinois, Canada. and
finally, in 1887, came west to California.
During all these years, he kept up a
correspondence with his wife, and con-
tinued to do so until November, 1888,
when his letters suddenly ceased.
Now comes the story of the defend
ants alleged villainy. The plaintiff
AYERS that on August 81, 1888, her hus-
band filed petition in the superior
court of this county, for divorce from
her, alleging as one of the main grounds,
that she had deserted him. This allie
cation she denies emphatically, and on
the other hand claims that La Pierce
deserted her on January 5, 1884. She
further claims that the papers in the d.
vorce proceedings were never served
upon her, but that the defendant de-
ceived the officers of the court and the
court itself, and procured an order for
the publication of the summons in
paper called the Censor fraudulently,
and by means of false affidavits, in which
he alleged that he had last heard Of her
at Gunnison, Colorado, when he we'll
knew that she was still at Leadville, be-
cause he had received and acknowledged
letters from her at that place and time.
After the expiration of the time allowed
by law for serving the summons outside
the state, the defendant appeared in
court and took an oath that all due dill
gence had been resorted to in serving
the summons, and asked that the de-
fault of the plaintiff be entered, which
was done, and decree granted as
prayed for.
The plaintiff asserts that although La
Pierce was in regular correspondence
with her, he never mentioned the fact
that he was instituting proceedings for
divorce, nor did she hear of it until
September, 1889, and then only by rum
or. AS soon as she learned of it, how
ever, she demanded of defendant that
he set aside the decree, but this he re-
fused to do; wherefore she asks that
the decree of divorce be adjudged fraud
ulent, null and void.
Mrs. La Pierce, whose maiden name
was Marie Thompson, is now in this
city, armed with all the documentary
and other evidence necessary to sustain
her claim.
The defendant, who has resided in
Los Angeles for the past four years, dur
ing which time he of1iciated as Gordon
bleue at the California club, is we'll
known as the husband of the widow
of the late Sarsield p. O'Reilly, to
whom he was married on April 5, 1890,
in this city.
Mr.. La Pierce states that the story Of
his ex-wife is false. He did not care to
make any statement further than the
above saying that the whole matter will
come out in the courts.