The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-02-23
VANS FORMER WIFE.
Her Prior Claim to Him An
nulled by Divorce.
NO. 2 IS HIS LAWFUL SPOUSE.
unrsveifng OF the Masrgmonial TaEsfe
Sss vaskenbnrSh Left Behiad Him
lie Had Ne Property.

The complications arising from the
elopemsnt Of Frank 8. Van yaIkeaburgh.
Formerly proprietor Of the New York
Kitchen, with Min Matte Trowbriige. Of
Nspa, Cal. are not 20 great n the story OF
Mr.. Van ysskenhursh No. l, of 1923
Dolores street. San Francisco. would have
II appear.
Mrs Van vaikenbnrgh Ne. claims
faaf she vas married 10 the gay Van De-
cember %. lisa. ~ Rev. Henry Cor, pastor
OF the First Methodist Episcopal church
81 San Francisco. Shortly afterwards they
moved 20 Gold Hill, Nsv.. where Van
saksnbErgh obtained his first start in
life. For while he worked as q telegraph
operator. then entered q brokers Office.
and finally went into the brokerage husi-
ness Tor himself Four years later Van
saikenburgh went 10 San Francisco on
Important businsss. a. he said. and nsver
came back again. IL would appear from
an intervisw with Mrs. Van yaikenburgh
No. | printed In the Gan Francisco
Chronicle that she has two sons
now living. both of whom ara
children OF Van yalkenburgh. In this
matter, however. there 10 proban.y mis-
take. IS Van valkenbugh understood one
oil his sons died several years ago. Mrs.
Van Vaikenburgh No. says that she re-
ceived word from Utah several years ago.
after being deserted, that her husband had
obtained divorce. and she was atIiberfy
10 marry. No notice was served on her,
and from that she concludes the divorce
was obtained frAudnlently and cAnno.
stand. She heard indirectly from her hus-
band now and then. but never got track OF
him definitely until he eloped with Matte
Trowbridgs. She concludes that she and
her sons have been treated shamefuiiy.
and that she will have her former spouse
arrested for bigamy If she can locate him
She also claims that Mrs. Van valken-
burgh No. 2 knew OF Mrs. Van valken-
burgh No. |.
In that particular Mrs. Van valkenburgh
No. ! is right, but she mi ght have added
that Mrs, Van vaikenburgh No. knew
that Mr.. Van vslkenburgh sent money to
support his child. Mr.. Van Valken-
burgh married Mrs. Van vaikenburgh
No. 2 openly and after he had convinced
her that he was divorced legally from his
former vile. The attorneys for Mrs. Van
Valkenburgh No. are satisfied that tho
divorces was legal and stand ready to prove
70 y.
who has charge Of the affairs of Mrs. Van
valkenhurgh No. 2. was interviewed by q
Posr-ISTELLIsEscER reporter yesterday.
be made the following statement to dispel
a few of tho clouds that have been caused
by Mrs. Van valkenourgh No. L.
at is probable that the woman in San
Francisco who ciaim3 10 be Van Valken.
burgh's legal wife Was married TO him AZ
the time she SAYS, but think she will Ind
that he obtained divorce from her in a
legal manner. Mr.. Van yalkenburgh is
too shrewd a man 10 commit bigamy when
divorces are so easy to obtain Mrs Van
Valkenbargh No. married Van Valken-
burgh with full knowledge that he had
been previously married. presumably 10
the woman who is now in San Francisco.
Mr.. Van Vaikenburgh, however, acted
honorably and convinced Mrs. Van Val
kenbnrgk No. 2 that he had been divorced
from hts former wife and gave reasons why
he could NOT live with Mrs. Van Vaiken-
burgh No. 1. Ii was not anything that re-
fiected on her morally. The statement
that Mr.. Van Nalkenhurgh's divorce is not
legal because Mrs. Van Valkenbur9h No.
did not receive notification Is of no ae-
count. The notification was by pubica-
ton. Mr.. Van lkenburgh contributed
10 the support of his chisd for some time.
lie had two by his first wife. bat one died.
Since have learned that the letter written
by Mrs. Van Valkenburgh No. 1 concern
ing her former husband was addressed TO
the county auditor and inquired particu-
larry as TO Mr. Van Faikenhurgh's prop
erty, il is presumable that she has other
objects than revenge in looking up her
former husband. Al matter of fact, Mr..
Van Valkenburgh has no real estate or
personal property in King county"