The evening world., 1893-09-21
MRS. ADAMS Loses AGAIN.
Queer Matrimonial Complications
Revealed by the Suit.
The Husband Thought He Had =
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 N. Adams.
Mrs Adams Is . Brooklyn school-teacher.
Her husband is a manufacturer Of stained
glass, with an ONCE at No. 65s Broadway,
New York. The couple were married on
March IL, 1887. in jersey City. They have
no children.
Mrs. Adams claims that ncr husband has
The only money he has given her In that
time. sho alleges, is % 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 hiss
wife in 1891 was mutual.
ten to Adams by Lawyer q. q. Howe, under
date OF FEB. y, 1898, that Adams was mar
ried before he welded his present wife
To- oR found the New Law 81
that pT9s to 81 ss Ss
T.irisors ON FsS' ,. ISIS hi. law va.
rs.s Of e.. U.h ens s.r prior TO
the commencement Of toe procsedinss.
nsnss. undsr The old law a owing di,ercss 10 non:
r::dsD,' ,d bot The
II is null and void. and tho second marriage is also
The know Isdge of this fact makes 1t unlawful for
Si H% anu 'o' second WHO 10 resume ""''S' ''"
ON receipt of this letter Adams wrote to
his second wife AS follows:
NEW YORK, Feb. II. 1898
Mrs. M.-Dear Madam: ! send Inclosed . note
lions vhicS have hersteforo siisted bstw.sn US. -
acted IN good fsith and supposed l hal obtained
appears that the lawyers I employed acted frsadu.
isntly and obtained an ILLEGAL decree; hence Mrs.
o:wl.as. q the tact. ss.t.d in u.
snd my children could institute criminal proceed
ssms the courts Of Ne. Jersey would annul.the
s.is only under the advice of counsel Ms.Dsc
In his decision Justice Bartlett says:
"Tbis 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 for q separation on the ground
parties do not want to live with one another
:" Since tho present action was begun the
under her mothers will TO keep her from
want, even Without anything from her nus
band. But l am not satisfied that her hus-
band has refused or neglected to support her
In any such sense as to enable her success
fully TO maintain this action.
He has undoubtedly treated her in 4 dis
agreeable ana niggardly manner, but am
not convinced that he would have withheld
such support Is IL was within his power to
AFFORD II she had gone to hin and remained
with him at the times which he appointed.
"On the whole ! 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. 1t is true
the defendant. since that Judgment was
rendered, has written to the plaintiff sug-
gesLlng that his divorce from his former vi Q
was null and void, as he had been advised
by his attorney; hut he appears atterward TO
have abandoned that position, ana II
tho plaintiff did not accept II as
correct she could not hold hill
liable In such suit as this for neglecting to
support her unless she made II plain that she
desired to live with him as his wife and be
supported BY him, outstanding the
doubts he expressed about his Utah divorce.
I" The defendant must nave judgment dis
missing the complaint Without COSTS"