The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-07-11
GOTHAM'S BIG SCANDAL.
A Case in Which Many of the
Four Hundred Were
pliCated.
LETTERS TO ANOTHER WOMAN.
Referee Godkin Did Not Consider
Them Sufficient Cause for
a Separation.

NEW YORK, n. Y, July 10.-Judge
Slower in the Supreme Court chambers
yesterday granted judgment dismissing
the suit for separation which was brought
by Mrs. Fredericka f. Mum against her
husband, Ernst M. Mum.
The parties to the action are of social
standing and wealth, and have been sep
arated about year. Mrs. Mum is a cousin
of Union College, Schenectady, and Judge
John A. Miller of Newark, n. j., is her
brother-in-law. Her separation from her
husband was due to the fact that she had
discovered certain letters written by him
to certain woman, which led her to
believe that lie was infatuated with her.
The Munns were married in Newark,
June 5, 1885, They lived there until May,
1892 when they moved to Brooklyn. They
remained there until May, 1894, and then
took up their residence at Glenside Park,
NJ. 1t was while living there that Mr..
Mum made the acquaintance of Catherine
Neuman. with whom his wife declared he
had become infatuated, and on whose
account there was separation. Mrs.
Mum declared that her husband had
abandoned her for this woman. He most
positively declared that the accusation
was not true.
Nearly year ago Mr.. Mum sailed for
Europe on a business trip, and his wife
states that he informed her that upon his
return he would come to this city and pro-
vide her with home. He came back from
Europe on September % last, but instead
of going to his wife went to the home of
his parents in Brooklyn, at PIT Union
street, where he has since resided. Mrs.
Mum went to the Hotel Bristol to live.
She, in her action, claimed that he had
abandoned her and refused to contribute to
her support, and said that she had only re-
ceived 500 from him from the time that
he went to Europe last summer. Mr.. Mum
denied that he had abandoned his wife and
asserted that the abandonment was on her
part. He said that when he left her he
had fully provided for her support and had
left ample means for her until his return
from Europe. He, however declared that
all their troubles was due to interference
on the part of her mother and brother and
the rest of the family, who seemed to have
gotten complete control over her and to
have alienated her affections from him
entirely. He submitted for time to these
interferences on the part of her family, but
at last his patience became exhausted and
he asserted his rights and declared that
he would not be ruled by them any longer.
He moreover said that Judge Miller, her
brother-in-law, had spread scandalous re-
ports concerning him, and that his wife
had permitted outrageous and unjust as
saults upon him by Judge Miller.
Upon learning of these facts, upon his
return from Europe, his anger and pa
tience became exhausted and he believed
that her affections had been lost to him,
and in a hasty moment told her that he
would not live with her any longer. He
was tired of her relatives. but was willing
to care for her independent of them. Sew
eral weeks after he had told her that he
would not live with her any longer he
wrote her letter in which he stated that
he realized that he had been rather hasty
in his actions but at the same time it was
right for her to come and live with him in
the home which he would provide for her
In answer to this Mrs. Mum sent a let
ter requesting an explanation of his rela-
tons with the woman about whom she
complained. He sent a reply to this,
which was not satisfactory, and repeatedly
thereafter wrote to her requesting that she
should return to him, but she never did.
While she was i'll at the Hotel Bristol,
after the suit was brought, her husband
had an interview with her, but no recon-
ciliation was effected.
The case was sent to Lawrence Godkin
as referee, who made report recommend
ing that the complaint be dismissed upon
the ground that the abandonment by the
husband had not been shown, as he re-
peatedly offered her home after his first
hasty step. When the letters from Mr..
Mum to the woman of whom his wife
complained, tending to show infatuation
on his part for her, were put in evidence,
the referee said that however wounding
such letters may have been to the feelings
of faithful and devoted wife, he could
not find any authority to sustain the propo-
sition that she could decline to return to
him after knowledge of them, and then
claim separation upon the sole ground of
abandonment. He therefore recommended
that the complaint be dismissed.
General Joseph w. Plume married sis
ter of Mrs. Mum.