Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-10-29
MISTAKE IN DIVORCE
THE PARTIES THOUGHT THEY WE'RE
SEPARATED BY LAW YEARS AGO.
Each Married Again and There Are Ten
chiidren--The Legal Knot United
mt Last.
Pitssburg TimesI

The ehozts OF those who lowered about
the Divorce Court in Allegheny county
wears ago mast have bean astonished
when the case OF 'Jpperman W.. Upper
man In divorce" was called before Judge
Stowe, for the case was begun twenty"
eight years ago, and, as everybody
thought, ended by the granting OF an ap-
soiute divorce twenty-six years ago. one
of the two lawyers who appeared In "
IN bong since dead. The commissioner VINO
took the testimony rs dead. The sherin
who served the subpoena In dead. One
OF the three judges. Mellon, SterTett, ana
Stowe, who passed upon IT, is now IN
the banking business: another Is Chiei
Justice OF the Supreme Court OF Penn
sylvania.
Judge Stowe and Thomas NJ. Marshall
Henry Upperman and Catherine Moke-
Upperman- William Davis, his former
wife. alone of those who appeared In the
beginning. have part In the CONCLUSION
OF this romantic chapter In regal pro-
ceodlngs. Since the supposed granting OF
the divorce in 1851, Henry uppsrman'
who is brother and partner OF state
Senator John Upperman. has married
and has three children. His former wife
has twice married and had seven chill
dren. The whole ten are living.
IN 1863.
When they were married IN 1868 he
was young man OF q, and she, TWO
years younger. was one OF the prettest
girls in Lawrepceville borough. She is still
q
In connection with this proceeding they
had TO be introduced
He said, How are you, KateY' and
she:
How do you do, Mr.. Upperman?
May II. 1853, in "a 1T OF pique with
another sweetheart. Catherine Moke mar
rfed Henry Upperman. In September fol-
lowing she repented and left him. TWO
years and more OF separation having
passed on September o. 1865, he filed
petition for a divorce. No. Of December
term, 1896 The subpoena awarded upon
the missing wife October 2, 1860. was
returned by the then sheriff, John ii.
Stewart, non es inventus (she Is not TO
be found, but on May 81. 1866, following
Il second or alias subpoena was awarded,
and service accepted by Mrs. Upperman.
4 commissioner, Walter s. McCune.
now also dead, was appointed and testi-
court. and decree in absolute divorce
granted October %, 1861.
The divorced wife subsequently married
Harry williams. and they had two chill
dren who are still living and grown up.
lie Died. May go 1870. and February y,
lSZ3. the widow married David Davis. who
had been a soldier in the war. In the
meantime her first husband. Henry Upper
man. also married and became the father
I4,rfp ~
up.
Catherine Moke-Upperman-W Williams
Davis had FIVE children by her third mar
rage. who are still living, and under the
pension laws are entitled to pensions since
the death Of their father until they reach
the age Of sixteen.
STILL HIS WIFE.
But on application for this, and conse-
ouent inquiry into the facts, u was as
certaincd. much 10 the surprise Of all con-
cerned. that the court records did not
show that any decree In divorce between
Henry Upper1pan and Catherine Moke-
IIpperman had ever been granted; that
in law and by the records she was still
mis- wife Nor did the evidence upon
which IL had been granted appear any
where OF record.
And so yesterday. twenty-eight years
and more after the first petition. another
petition was presented TO Judge stowe
setting forth these facts and praying
him TO grant "a decree from the bans
of matrlmony. nunc pro tune now FOR
them. as Of october %, 1861 that the
legitimacy of the children and the legality
OF the subsequent marriages be authenti-
Gated"
In this petition the husband and wife
Of thirty years ago join their prayers.
il Is accompanied by an affidavit OF
Thomas NJ Marshall testifyIng to his
knowledge of the facts narrated above.
and 10 his theory that the loss of the
papers and the flaw in the records was
probably caused by the neglect or mad
vertence OF James Johnson. the coun-
sci for the wife In the case. There
was also filed with this last application
n copy of the original decree. which the
wife had kept all these years.
And so, after twenty-eght years
Judge Stowe, coming again, IA president
Judge of Common Pleas Court, No. :,
into the case. which was one of the first
to come before him when he was first
elected to the bench. made the following
decree
And now, October is. 1868, the Court
being satisfied from testimony produced
in this case, that. upon hearing and suili-
Client cause shown, this court did on the
9th of October. 1851 grant AMI make a
decree OF divorce a vinculo matrlmOnii
whereby the marriage bonds between
said Henry Upperman and Catherine
Moke- Upperman were dissolved. ard
that said decree, though duly made bv
the Court was never entered Of record
in said cause as should have been done,
and It appearing that the paper now at
tached to the petition filed in the case
contains true and correct copy of said
decree 1t is now ordered and directed
that said copy be filed the original
decree made In said case. with like effect
as II entered on the date thereof, on the
record of our said court"