The sun., 1895-02-15
MARRIED HIM FOUR TIMES.
BUr PRATT, THE YoUNa HUsBAND,
DENIES An THE CEREMONIES.

| y hcmHrRnhlo vase OF Alleged Matrtwo-
niai TnnEies That Is Now Before ths
Superior Court-The PiainuG says She
Married Spencer Charles Pratt on
Four Different Occasions, but She
VIII Be Satisfied with Having One
OF the Ceremonies Pronounced valid.
Lawyer Thomas McAdam appeared before
| Judge Freedman In the Superior Court yester-
| day, and asked permission to file an amended
complaint In the case of Maggie Pratt against
| Spencer Charles Pratt for separation on the
ground Of abandonment. The argument In tho
| application revealed q state OF affairs which
rendered Judge Freedman breathless, and
| caused even the oldest court attendants to open
| their ewes in establishment The plaintiff In the
case although only 10 years old, has been mar
| rcd to the defendant four times. has begun
action for divorce as many times, and then
discontinued the actions before they came to
trial, has begun an action to have her marriage
with Pratt declared null and void. has sued the
young man for breach Of promise, and has also
figured AS correspondent in u suit begun By the
first Mrs. Pratt for divorce. As a climax to IL
all tho lawyer who brought the first OF the suits
against Pratt on behalf of the alleged Mrs.
Pratt appeared yesterday counsel for the
young man he had once prosecuted and pro-
tested most strenuously against permission be-
ing given to file the amended complaint.
The woman who has brought all OF these ac-
tiOns Is the daughter of ono of the oldest resi-
dents of the First ward. Her maiden name was
Maggie Fnnerty, aud her father. Michael Fin
nerty, is liquor dealer at 1"Ia Washington
street, who is said to be worth Sl50,O00.
The commencement and dlscontinuance of
suits for separation aud divorce by her have
been frequent that her name has become
byword in the office OF the Clerk Of the Su-
perior Court.
The clerks have frequently Tested about
those Pratt suits" and wondered when new
one to be commenced or when an old one
was to he ordered discontinued. None Of the
suits of sufficient interest to warrant publi-
cation, however, until early last September.
when the alleged Mrs. Pratt began to show
signs of meaning business. She first made
motion for alimony and counsel fees, which mo-
ton was denied by Judge McAdam. Then she
began suit for separation, and in her affidavit
made some interesting statements.
Spencer Charles Pratt is ri years old, and
lives with his people at 113 McDonough street,
Brooklyn. The woman who is suing him claims
that he has an income of 100000 year. but
this, he says. Is untrue. His father S. 7. Pratt,
is in the butter business at 90 Warren street,
this city. and although the defence alleges that
young Pratt really owns the business, he claims
his father and receives S25 a week.
In the amended complaint the plaintiff says
that in her original suit she was represented by
Lawyer Henry NJ. Heyman. Since then she
has retained Lawyer Thomas McAdam, and he
the facts in the case in the complaint.
She was first married to young Pratt. she says.
on May II. 1882, ut Railway, \. j., both giving
fictitious names. she that of Maggie Finlay and
he that Of Harry Spencer. The name OF the
minister or the names OF the witnesses do not
most emphatically that Pratt assured her that
there was no legal impediment to their mar,
Tage. and also that the ceremony was performed
Tie next ceremony took place on june. Il,
1892 and was performed by the Rev. NJ. L.
Hollis at Bayonne Once more she claims Pratt
assured her that there was no legal obstacle in
the way Of their marriage. The witnesses to
Mccormick, both members Of the minister's
household. The plaintiff then goes on TO say
that at the time of both these marriages the de-
fendant, Pratt, had wife living, and had no
right TO contract marriage. In November. 1892,
divorce from, him on the statutory grounds,
Maggie Finnerty being named as correspondent.
In August. $50? two months 3, before the grant,
for the first time that the man she supposed
was her husband had another wife alive; I'm
granted TO the real Mrs. Pratt the plaintiff went
to Philadelphia with the Defendant, where they
mutually agreed to live together as man and
wife, or, in other words. entered into a common
law marriage. On July i. 1893, the plaintiff
as man and wife, and entered into a contract to
no reason is given in the affidavit for the
second common-law marriage, while IL is eY-
pressN stated that the couple did not once sepa-
rate from the date of the first marriage in Phia-
left the plaintiff and has since failed to provide
in any way for her support
The athdayit which young Pratt has MED IN
estlna one. IN 1t he says that the first action
was commenced against him on July 10, 1894.
at which time he was served with q summons.
On Aug. !, he says. the plaintiff ordered a dis
continuance of the action. and Immediately
him, copy OF the complaint being duly served
upon him. His afiidavit then goes on
% m yasn nAt the in no@e q" Marsarss lsSs se nsg
brought an action against MIN in the
supreme Court to have their marriage declared
null and void. In her complaint in this action
she relates the circumstances of her marriage to
the defendant in Bayonne and adds that she
% man she had married had had be been weddcd in this his
city to ono May Ella Ritchie, with whom he
yed gn May s shorty AFTER says sss tn.
plaintiff ordered it discontinued, and com.
menced another suit of an entirely different
character. In this suit the woman was repre-
senred by Howe & liummel, and on Nov 10,
1903, Pratt alleges he received letter from
structed by one Margaret Fnnerty to bring suit
against him for breach OF promise, seduction,
aud assault, and advising him TO call at their
Pratt alleges that he never entered into COM
delphia, and that all of the actions against him
have been brought with view to forcing him TO
make a settlement in order to avoid unpleasant
litigation. He says that Maggie Finley was
and typewriter He met her inithe store, where
he was employed as a clerk. She knew he
married man because she frequently
saw his wife in the store. In concusio
he says that sine is an exceptionally fine clerk
and capable of earning good wages and con-
sequently her demand for alimony Is unreason-
able. In proof OF this statement he mentions
the fact that she has been employed at various
times by John !. Davenport, by the Consolidated
Steel and Wire Company, and BY Hartley &
Graham Of 3l3 broadway, where she is now en-
ployed and is known as Maggie Finley.
Lawyer McAdam said yesterday that the
allegation that the plaintiff was trying 10 obtain
money from Pratt was false. II such were the
case, he said, they could easily begin action
against Pratt for perjury or bigamy. They
simply want to establish q marriage and would
he satisfied II they can do that. Mr. McAdam
explained the second marriage at Bayonne by
saying that his client insisted ON it. because she
had been married the first time under an as
sumed name.
After her marriage Miss Finnerty was turned
L.. to- To-