The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1892-11-10
Mr.. JOHNSON'S DIVORCE.
A DOUBT IS CAST UPON ITS
VALIDITY.
Judge Otis Grants the Application
for Alimony Made by Mrs.
Johnson Of ST. Paul
Some Interesting
Affidavits. .j|4 81 .i
"lf Everl Cease to Love-"

throws considerable suspicion upon 1t. Ills
order granted the application for alimony
made by Mrs. Johnson, of BOG South Ok
change street, and gave Mr.. johnson five
days within which to pay $3.50 as temporary
alimony and counsel fees. The alimony is
fixed ut $3.50 month, commencing Oct. 10,
the date Of the commencement Of the di-
vorce suit and to continue until the action
Is determined. Mrs. johnson is also award
ed the possession Of the homestead, the
household furniture and the custody Of her
eleven-year-old daughter, Florence.
The order Of Judge Otis has greater
bearing upon the case than the usual grant
Ing of alimony in divorce cases where the
wife is plaintiff, because Of the peculiar
circumstances Of the case and the nature
or the DEFENSE Mrs. Helen NJ Johnson APP
piled for divorce from A. e. Johnson, the
well known immigration agent and traffic
man, and alleged adultery with Emma
DraDDle, committed on Aug. s last, and at
various other times since that date After
the action had been commenced the ordi-
nary application for an allowance of ali
mony pending the suit was made, and there
was nothing extraordinary in the formal
pleadlngs to give the public an intimation |
or the sensational story behind the case. |
MIR. johnson opposed the allowance Of ali
mony on the ground that the marriage re- !
latlon did not exist between them This
was lAS punt WHICH 1uJGCCeu INTO the case /
the sensational feature and made the issue
partially determined by Judge Otis. And it
was the argument of the motion for alinlony
that brought into notice the details of the !
relationship. ~ -' sal' -.z ~
Is Mrs. Helen NJ. johnson the wife of A.
H. Johnson? This preliminary question
must be answered before the question Of a
divorce can be considered. %."..
1t the question is decided in the affrma
1--WE, CnGn what rp11ti nShin ictc IL
"A. II. Johnson and Emma Drabble. A mar
rage ceremony was had between them and
they are living together as man and wife.
Johnson is under every obligation to SIM
port the V>hdity of that ceremony. He
owes II TO the woman whom he swears TO
,oVe' honor and protect, and he owes it to
nlinsef to avoid prosecution for biga1ny.
Ihese reasons are enough to induce q do
tense Of the most vigoruous kind. 8. ~
ana MI. Johnson will not lack the neces-
sary slneWs Of war. He is said to be worth
$2OOOO0, and to have an annual income of
over 1000. He conducts offices in St.
Paul, Chicago, New York, Duluth, Minnean-
oils, Tacoma and Seattle, anu is said to be
very successful in business matters. That
ne does not propose to spare money in fight
ing the divorce case is to be inferred from
the expense to which he has gone in fight
ing the preliminary motion decided yester-
day. The attidavits OF large number Of
parsons living in ve1ious parts of the coun-
try We're read to the court, anu the contents
of the afidavits related to events extending
through period of years. They We're filed
in the clerks office yesterday in company
with the judges order, and their contents
are not confined to u defense Of Mr.. John
son. ,!,.- ---t,s -@s ss-5- .-afaFt
Mrs. Johnson is assaulted directly and by
innuenCO. Acts OF indiscretion are given in
detail, and from some OF them differences OF
3c4
that this feature OF afldavits did not have
= direct bearing upon the validity of the
Chicago divorce, but they showed the bit
terness with which Mr.. johnson proposed to
so into the legal fight with his former wife.
The ashes OF la1nily Quarrels between Mrs.
Johnson and different members or her house,
hold are raked over, and ancient sparks OF
luminosity are kinuleu into nanes.
sampe e a az shGw 6ne Tenor
Mrs. Mary. A. Earnum, the plaintiff S sister,
sweais to Mrs. Johnson's two matrimonial
experiences Prior TIN to her marriage 1 to JONI t
fact that both ended in the divorce court.
TINS fact is supposed to reflect upon the
plaintiff Mrs: Mary Cothernan OF Essex
aging things. She was a daughter Of one Of
Mrs Johnson's former husbands and had
lived with her in ST.. Pau during johnson's
married life with the fair plaintiff Mrs.
Johnson had married the depOnent's father
When Mrs. Cotherman. was a child CT four
years, anu WueE the divorce occurred TWO
yeas later the stepdaughter remained with
the wife. She was raised in. ignorance Of
l her fathers existence and learned ed Of his
ment of the child is given at length by the
woman, and as climax Mrs. johnson is
said to have driven the girl Of seventeen
sequent and vain efforts of Mary to find en-
pl lyment in st. Paul either as u clerk or as
ser"ant are related. The depths to which
she sunk are expressed by telling how she
m: FRIED "a mechanic -
Another grave charge was that Mrs. John
son, during Mr.. Johnsons absence, would
evening and return home late at highland
alone She would ,S also go to the theater in
Exchange street house from the fall of 1887
to November, 1889, knew about intoxi,
which liquors Mrs. Johnson ''partook liber-
ally Cigarettes We're also SMOKED during
been sworn to by Colt johnson. q stepson,
now twenty-six years Old He had been
anG he a dhe ST.
matter He played private detective and fol-
lowed his stepmother to her dressmakers.
when she entered the dressmaker's and
talked in a loud tone Of voice. The dutiful
stepson concealed himself outside of the
Mrs. Johnson threaten to eXpel the caves
dropper from her house l9 = She also said that
she was Tlreu OF the IdLucr, Nlf. johnson,
and referred to him in ''uncomplmentary
terms" That same night Mrs. Johnson kept
her threat to expel the stepson, and he, SO
the affidavit relates. went to Texas, in spite
of Gen. Sheridans well known recommends
ton Of that state where he endured many
/ hardships. The connection between the Tex
as hardships in 1884 and the validity Of the
Chicago divorce in 1892 is not made clear in
the affidavit.
Many Of the afidavits related to the place
| Of Mr.. Johnson's residence, whether here or
| Chicago. This was the point really at issue
| If he has his legal residence ia Chicago then
| tho Illinois court had jurisdiction and the
| divorce secured last summer may be valid
| Exactly what the Ramsey county district
court may think about the place Of resi-
| dcnce cannot be known until further pro
| cecdngs nre had in the case, and the order
| filed yesterday does not determine the point
| IT. is only a straw showing the winds direc-
| ton The fact Of the divorce having been
| granted for desertion while Mrs Johnson
| was being supplied with money by Mr.. John
! son and was In correspondence with him
! may also be Of Importance when the case
| comes on for trial.
! Elections in Italy.
! Rome, Nov. S.--The returns Of yesterdays
| elections for members Of the chamber Of
| deputies show that 1S4 government support
| ers and II members Of the opposition were
| ole 12nha11DtS Will IeresSn inis