St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-12-06

parties TO this latest suit ara Miss Flor
ence st. John. the actress, and Duplany
Marius, and the charges made against
the latter are the only ones upon which
an absolute divorce can be obtained in
England, namely. cruelty and adultery.
Miss ST. John charges that since her
marriage to the defendant he has treat
ed her in most cruel manner, and that
he has also been criminally intimate
with other women. The case came up
today before Justice Jeune, in the di-
vorce division Of her majesty's high
court of justice. Sir Charles Russell
appeared FOR the petitioner and c. a.
Gill for the respondent. Mr.. Gill ad-
mitted that the charge of adultery was
true, but claimed that it had not Oc-
CURED until after Miss st. John had de-
serted her husband.
Sir Charles Russell stated that Marius
and Miss st. John fell in love with each
other when they were both married per-
sons. They so far forgot their duties to
their respective partners that the pro-
curing of a divorce by Mrs. Marius and
another by Miss st. Johns husband was
rendered necessary. After these divorces
had been granted. Marius married Miss
st. John. The couple did not live hap
PLY and scenes of violence were fire.
quent between them. Finally, in Sep
TENDER, 1883, MariuS knocked his wife
down and so abused her that, had it not
been for the fact that her brother was
in the house, there is no saying how his
violence would have ended. After this
trouble they no longer lived together as
man and wife.
Miss st. John was called to the wit
ness box 10 testify as 10 her charges.
She said she met MariuS at the Strand
theater in 1879. After he had been di
vOrced from his wife and she from her
husband she married him. This was in
1885. In 1856 a child was born to them.
She had much reason to complain OF
Marlus' Incorporate habits in 1887 and
1855. When he was drunk he was very
vicious and insulting. The witness
gave in detail number of acts of cru
city on the part Of the respondent.
Upon crOss-eXaminaIiOn Miss st.
John stated that she was very fond of
her husband. When she was at Nice
she wrote TO him daily. He had written
her very indecent letter which she had
not kept, and she had complained of the
indecency of her husbands expressions.
Witness admitted she had dined with
Arthur Cohen in public places. He was
very kind to her. and her husband had
made no ObjebtiOn TO Mr.. Cohen visiting
her and giving her presents. On the
contrary. her husband had rather en-
cOuraged him. Miss st. John tes-
titled that she was not fifteen years Old
when she was first married. She went
to Monte Carlo with Lady Euston. Mr..
Cohen was there also, but not with her.
Afterwards she went with Mr.. Cohen,
Mr.. Werthelmer (the correspondent III
the action for divorce brought by Lord
DunlO. now Lord Clancarty, against his
wife, the concert hall singer. Belle
BiltOn) and Lady Euston, to Nice.
Cohen gave her jewelry. just as other
other people did.
At this point IN the testimony court
adjourned. Miss ST. Johns suit is
confederation brought to Offset a SINH
lar suit instituted against her by
Marius. He alleges that his wife has
had improper relations with Arthur
COden, Sub-editor of the Financial News.
MariuS asks no money damages against
Cohen, but only asks the court to rid
him of his marriage ties.