The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1893-12-20

Sentence for Poisoning Her Hus-
band-FuII Details of an Interesting
story.
COLUMBUS. Ind, Dec. 17-Special.-
Recently a letter was received here by
County Clerk w. II. Fulwider making
inquiry about divorce proceeding in
the Bartholomew county circuit court.
A great many of our readers remember
seeing accounts during the last few
years Of the conviction and imprison-
ment for life of Mrs. A1aybrick in Lon
don FOR the poisoning Of her husband.
Mrs. Maybrick was an American, but
married a wealthy Englishman. while
her mother had previously married the
Baron Won Roques A few MOI hs be-
fore the death of James G. Blaine, Gall
Hamilton Dodge took an interest in the
case, and some very hot correspondence
ensued between them as TO the release
OF Mrs. Maybrick. 1t seems now that
the romance has had a hearing in
Columbus. from the tone Of the follow
Ing letter. which was received by Coun-
" Clerk FUlwider:
NEW YORK. Dec. g. 1893.
County Clerk. Columbus, Indiana:
"Wiu you have the kindness to inform
me on the within postal whether there
is in your office any record Of a divorce
IN favor Of the Baroness Won Roques?
Her first husbands name was Chambers,
and she is the mother of Mrs. Maybrick.
Her second husbands name was DR..
Barry The rumor says she married an
italian and sued him for a divorce In
New Albany, and the suit was trans
ferred by a change Of venue to your
county. The name, I think, commences
with r and B and winds up with an o,
and sounds very much like an Italian
name. Her name Is Caroline r. Should
you find such a record give me the fun
names Of the parties TO it. when OBJ
tanned and on what grounds and Will
on that information frame interrOga-
lions and send a commissioner either
10 you or 10 a friend you may nominate.
Please also inform me what Will be the
fee for executing the commission, and
what viii be the expense Of a certified
copy OF the papers in your Office.
Yours truly
ANDREW II. II. DAVIDSON,
Attorney"
An investigation reveals the following
facts: The divorce suit was brought I'm
1867 in the Lloyd county circuit court at
New Albany, but for some reason dis
missed. on Jan. 4, ISIS, two strange,
we'll dressed ladies came here. One was
small and slender. with a very beauti-
full. childlike face and fragile form This
lady gave her name as Caroline II.
Rebello. The other was an elderly lady.
dark complexion. and claimed To be her
mother They were accompanied by
two attorneys. Col. y. T. IIawhee OF
New Albany, Ind. and Col Thos- 3.
Farlegh Of Louisville. Ky. The quar-
tette here sought out Col. John A.
Keith Of this city. and brought suit for
divorce for the younger OF the two
ladies. after first having engaged board
and lodgings here. TIE following is the
complaint:
Caroline H RebeEo. the plaintiff.
complains Of Charles Rebellc the de
PENDANT. and says that she. the plaintiff
in this action, is now AT this time to-wit.
at the time OF bringing this action. a
bona fid- resident of the county Of Bar
tholomew and state OF Indiana;
that she has been bona Gde re-
sident Of the said state OF Indiana for
more than one year past and before the
commencement of this action.
1.-The said plaintiff further AYERS that
on or about the 18th day Of October.
1865. the plaintiff then being widow
named and known as Caroline H. Du
Barry. intermarried with one Charles
RebeHo. the defendant herein: that the
marriage ceremony was sOlemniZed in
the state of New Jersey by a person
unknown TO this plaintiff. and no wit
nesses were then and there present; that
no license was granted and no record
OF same was ever filed in the proper
Office TO plaintiffs knowledge. And the
said plaintiff further AYERS that the said
marriage was procured through fraud
ard false re, spTesentations and duress
of this DlalntlH by the sale defendant.
plaintiff further AYERS that the said
defendant Immediately after the mar
Tiage ceremony was so performed. to-
wit, on or about the lst day Of Sep
tembc- 1866. abandoned and left the
United States Of America and has not
returned thereto from said time TO the
present date so far as this plaintiff has
any knowledge. Plaintiff further AYERS
that she and the defendant never lived
one day together as man and wife, and
that she never took the rame Of said
defendant. but retained her former name
and was known only and recognized by
her said name OF Caroline II. On Barry
and the plaintiff never believed said
marriage valid; that the said defendant
is an alien ana nonresident Of the
United States and is subject Of the
kingdom OF Great Britain.
THAT since the said alleged n1srriage,
10 wit. on the day and date thereof as
aforesaid. the said defendant has wholly
failed. neglected and refused to con
tribute any moneys. means, credits or
effects 20 support the plaintiff or her
two children by a former marriage, but
that she has been compelled to and
has from her own resources supported
herself and said children, the oldest of
whom Is now only aged nine years.
Plaintiff further AYERS that the said
defendant on the 10th day OF October.
1865, tO-wit, on the day Of the said al
legged marriage. left and wholly aban-
doned this plaintiff without any just
cause or prOYOcation, and that he still
continues 70 live separate and apart
from her; that there Is no possibility of
a reconciliation between them.
Wherefore. by reason Of all and sim
gular OF the foregoing, the plain IN
prays this court 10 grant her a divorce,
and that he said marriage contract here
lofore existing between the said defend