Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1892-09-25
ACTOR BOB MANTELL.
His Wife'S Divorce Suit is Pressed
and he Makes Denial.
HE PAYS TOO MUCH ATTENTION
To His Leading Lady, Miss Char
lotte Behrens, and His Wife is
Bound to Push the Divorce Suit
to a Finish-Suit Has Been En-
tered to Stop His Use Of "The
Face in the Moonlight" is
Charged That the Play Was
Cribbed.

CrlDD6O.
New YORK, September 24.-The
the troubles of Robert Mantel, the ac-
tor, who is now playing the leading roll
In the romantic drama, "The Face in
the Moonlight" at Proctor's theatre,
are well nigh endless. They all hinge
on the actors intimacy with his leading
lady, Charlotte Behrens, as alleged by
Mrs. Mantell. The latter charges Miss
Behrens with all manner Of crimes, and
the way she is pushing the divorce suit
against her husband, now pending
would indicate that she does not think
her once idolized husband Is made OF
very muce better material.
Mrs. Mantell declares that she could
stand the numerous indignities heSped
upon her by her husband until they be-
gan to affect her health; then she de-
termined that matters would have to be
brought to focus.
This reference is supposed to have an
indirect bearing upon Mr.. Mantell, s
loan Of 81, 500 TO Miss Behrens, which
was made In the summer Of 1891.
To-day's court proceeding in refer
ence to the Mantell family were very
interesting.
In Supreme Court Chambers, Justice
Beach heard argument on the motion
for counsel fee and alimony in the di-
vorce suit. Neither Mr.. Mantell, his
wife, nor Charlotte Behrens was pres
ent ia court, to the very evident disap-
pointment of the actor folk who had
assembled in the corner Of the court
room.
The presence Of the principals was not
REQUIRED, however, and the proceedings
were brief, ,terse and to the point. ABE"
Hummel appeared for Mrs. Margaret B.
Mantell and ex-Assistant District Attor-
ney Henry Hartman represented MIR.
Mantell. The papers, contrary to e1-
pectations, were submitted to the court
after a few moments discussion between
the lawyers and no discussion was
reached, as Mr.. HummeI asked time to
be allowed to frame reply to the afti-
| davitS Of the defendant.
MANTELL MAKES DENIAL.
In the affidavit presented by Mantell
he makes a positive denial Of most OF
the charges brought against him. In
/ TEltI6uCG
been given to Miss Behrens, Mantell
says he gave her $500 In advance OF sal
ary. As to his wife's dismissal from the
company Mantell puts in positive de-
nial. On the contrary he declares that
his wife left the company OF her own
free will on November 21, 1892.
"When she left me-" says the defend
ant, 81 gave her one weeks salary Of
$50 and S1OO for travelling expenses.
She Quilted me, leaving hotel bill OF
S97 unpaid and a number of other bills,
including that Of manicure, which l
paid"
PROFITS OF SIX SEASONS.
The defendant also makes the inter-
esting statement that during the six
seasons prior to his engagement with
Proctor IL Turner, his share of the
profits aggregated S43, 337.37, out Of
which he had to deduct losses Of
S9,913.21.
That be promised to pay his wife
S10O a week on January 9, 1892, he
acknowledges, and says he did so for
twenty months. He was not really in
a condition to do this he says, and had
to stint himself to pay 1t. At the end
of his season, May 2S, 1892, he found
that he had sustained heavy losses.
He intimates that he was in straits
for some time after this, and had to
borrow from his friends and sell his
"stock In trade" in order to keep his
head above water.
On September s last, having 800, he
promptly paid it over to his wife,
through his counsel.
Mr.. Hummel asked time to file an an
swer, the papers were handed up and
decision reserved.
SUED BY ANOTHER PARTY.
In another part Of the same court an
other suit was brought against the act
or. Frank Melrose and Harry Chapman,
claiming to be authors and owners Of
"The Face in the Moonlight" which is
now being produced by Robert B. Man
tell, took proceedings in the Supreme
Court to establish their title to the
play. and they secured an order requir-
ing the actor and Messrs. Proctor and
Turner TO show cause why an injunc-
tion should not issue TO restrain them
from producing the play.
Melrose claims that he is the sole
owner OF the play, having written IL for
an actor named Harry Lorraine In 1870.
He subsequently sold one-half interest
in it to Chapman. he says that Charles
Osborne was at that time an actor in the
company which was producing the play
and be charges that he stole 1t. Ex-
Judge Dittenhoefer appeared before
Judge Beach to-day in Supreme Court
Chambers and moved an adjournment
of the motion.
Mantell, he said, is now playing 1t
under a license from one Parker, who
purchased the play from Charles Os-
borne. The latter wrote the play some
wears ago, but he was never con nected
with the stage in his life, being an
English inancier. The play has been
Droduced ever since in Europe as
Charles Osborne's play, and no claim
to It's title was ever made by any one
until the commencement OF the present
suit.
Judge Beach granted an adjournment
Of the motion, in order that Mr.. Often
boerer may send TO England to secure
afidayits from Osborne, Lorraine, and
others TO subStantiate the claim OF Man
tell. and also TO show that Osborne
took a certificate in London OF his au-
thorship, and fled the play there.
The Publication Goes.
sr,sial Telegram 10 TIE sunday Register.