The evening world., 1893-09-21
BROOKLYN NEWS.
mrs. ADAMS LOSES AGAIN.
Queer Matrimonial Complications
Revealed by the Suit.
The Husband Thought He Had q
Divorce and Married Her.

Justice Bartlett In the Supreme Court,
Brooklyn, this morning dismissed the suit
for separation brought by Matilda NJ. Adams
against her husband, samuel NJ. Adams
Mrs. Adams IL q Brooklyn school-teacher.
Her husband is a manufacturer OF stained
glass, with an of1ice at No. Cos Broadway,
New York. The couDlo were married on
March II, 1887, in Jersey City. They have
no children.
Mrs. Adams claims that ner husband has
refused to support her since october, 1892.
The only money he has given her in that
time. she alleges, is 20 cents.
She claims that he has even refused to pro-
vide rooms In which she could live. In his
defense Adams says his separation from his
wife in 1891 was mutual
ten to Adams by Lawyer G. p. Howe under
date OF Feb Q, 1893, that Adams was mar
rled before he welded his present wife:
&: Now 9srt .T e. Raas
*: rtoS Of u.h eosd ostsn S o,
TsIrItory. On Fsb. .. 1878. this nav va. repealed
d.s q d Ts.s he ,... prior RI 70
the S oomm me sm m, Of toe proeeehinEs
msnsed under The old law allowing di'oross 10 nom.
&C.. ss sa snsT.S sns sas a.
IL II null and void. and the second marriage is also
The Know edge of thi. fact m skes It unlawful for
tons.
ON receipt Of this letter Adams wrote to
his second wife as follows:
NEW YORK, Feb. II, 1893
Mrs. M.-Dear Madam: l send inclosed . note
ticns which have heretofore existed between us.
.oted IN good Iaith aud supposed l hal obtained
he' seisa ,,sGs
II II At lima -
;;upDGI.s :Iimes'' A. and shOuI .isei
tnclosed note again assure married relations. abe
and my children could institute criminal proceed
fhs second marriage being null and void pro-
sumo the Gov courts OF New Jersey would annul the
fas only under the advice OF counsel aisD I
In MS decision Justice Bartlett says:
This Is the second suit between the same
parties. The wife sued in New York for
separation on the ground OF Abandonment
and non-support and was unsuccessful She
now sues here Tor separation on the ground
parties do not want TO live with one another
any more
since the present action was begun the
nlaintin has received sufficient property
under her mothers will TO keep her from
want, even without anything from her nus
oand. but ain not satisfied that her hus-
nand has refused or neglected to support her
In any such sense as to enable her success
July TO maintain this action.
he has undoubtedly treated her in dis
agreeable ana nggardly manner, but I am
not convinced that he would have withheld
such support as " was within his power to
anord II she had gone 10 him and lemained
with him at the times which he appointed.
"0n the whole l do not thirk the case
made against him here Is any stronger than
that made against him In New York. where
the judgment Diminishing the complaint was
affirmed by the General Term. IL is true
the defendant. since that judgment was
rendered, has written to the plaintiff sug.
costing that his divorce from his former vi e
was null and void, as he had been advised
BY his attorney; hut he appears arterward TO
have abandoned that position, ami II
tho plaintin did not accept It as
correct she could not hold him
liable In such suit as this for negecting to
support her unless she made II plain that She
desired TO live with him as his wife and be
doubts he expressed about his Utah divorce
The defendant must have judgment dis
missing the complaint without COSTS"