The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-09-09
SUED FOR DIVORCE AT 70.
am. eARDNER ALse xCoUsED or
CHElTIYG BTs VIE.

rsr~. Csrarer ostnised . Separation for
CrueItv Years Ago-ISttTstion Betwee.
uvsbr.S and wire Over Real Estate
re Dpniss the Charge OF Inndeiity.
Patience M. Gardner has brought an action In
,be supremc Court for AN absolute divorce from
.Ismes Gardner, who IL 80 years old, on allega-
,Iops that the defendant has been living in
prook,vn and in Poughkecpsle with Mrs. Kate
Mccormick. The Gardners were married on
Nov. 8, 1910. and whlo they were living to-
ge,ber were in litigation for years over a large
amount Of property.
Gardner. who dresses very carefully in black
and has snow-white neck whiskers, was In
| court on Friday before Justice O'Brien to oppose
the motion of his wife for counsel fee and ali.
mopy. He has been living on his money for
several years. and his wife, who says he has OBJ
tanned more than 100000 worth of property
from her. declares In the papers on her motion
that she has been left virtually without means.
Gardner was n clerk in a railroad office on a
small salary when he married the plaintiff.
They went to live at the residence OF his wife's
aunt. Mrs. Sarah Hancock, in West FIftieth
street. The plaintiff had considerable property
of her own. They lived at Mrs. Hancock's until
her death, in 1854. Mrs. Hancock left her en-
tire estate, valued at 100000. 70 Mrs. Gardner,
and made her and William Wood executors,
Gardner had borrowed $4,000 from Mrs. Han.
cock coo in order der TO Y build t ths |, srow sirstt row, 22t,
E[Os hnu . VT. - ~
gage appears TO have been given for this
"" Wits Mr.. and Mrs. Gardner were living a,
224 West Fifticth street she sued her husband
as the. executrix Of the will of her aunt to re-
still owed the estate. A decision was rendered
in 1870 that he owed the estate only Sll,S0g,
And that this claim G %sS 5 Ssrs sSpe Sy s9e rs statute A. tee. OF
eral Term of the supreme Court, which decided
that the claim was not outlawed, and ordered
new trial. She did not proceed any further In
the case. She also alleged that her husband
made her sell bonds Of her own 70 pay Ola
Sl1. 900 mortgage. threatening her with a pistol
he had put on the mantelpiece..
In 1850 she sued her husband in the Supreme
Court for q separation on the ground Of cruelty
acts of cruelty was that he had thrown her
violently against a buffet: On enother occasion
had threatened to fix" her. At a strawberry
festival in the summer of 1879 she showed that
he had publicly denounced her and called her
hard names. Hchad forbidden her to go TO church
for two years before she left him and would not
Van Brunt gave her a decree and permanent
alimony Of $1,000 q year: In 1881 Gardner
in stuyvesant street, Brooklyn.
Lawyer f. II. Bcnn, counsel for the plaintiff.
court es,n t ON Friday his ea nnd declared @i a eSo that G g. sdRRseSs a ~
been living will Mrs. MCCORMACK for more
than a dozen years on the proceeds Of the money
Ikea man Of wealth: Mrs. Gardner gave her
him. and she also gave $4,000 in cash
in 1884. In return he gave her Ave houses
which are heavily encountered and from which,
she says, she barely receives enough money to
pay the &c cost 'S. Of Taintenaness &C.. taxes, n the In A;
and unable to comprehend the arrangement she
made with her husband In 1854: He hsd prsy!!-
tieth street and was fined 5000 by the Supreme
Court, which reinstated her in possession.
Mr.. Gardner presented an affldavit denying
relations with Mrs. Mccormack. and
that his wife knew fully tho terms OF
the settlement he made with her. Mrs. McCor-
mack and her two daughters also offered afl-
davits to the effect that the relations of Mrs.
Mccormack and Gardner were proper.
Justice O'Brien gave counsel until Sept. 81 70
submit further afhdavits.