Waterbury evening Democrat., 1895-03-29
| Mr.. DRAYT0N ANSWERS
His Reply to His Wife's Cross
Suit Filed at Trenton.
he WANTS TO GET THE CHILDREN.

He Denies Her Charge of Desertion, but 1t
Is Understood That He VIII Not Oppose
Her Divorce. Providing the Conditions
Are Not Severe Against Him.
TRENTON, March 29.-Thero was filed
with the clerk of tho chanccry court the
answer Of !. Coleman Drayton to the pc
tition presented by his wife few weeks
ago praying that she hc granted n divorce.
The answer now completes the case so far
rs the prcliminarics are concerned. Mr..
DraytOn SUES his wife for divorce and in
addition To her answer to his suit she
brings counter suit, to which no now
answers.
DcSertion, brought about by Mr.. Dray
toms unjust suspicious OF her martial
fidelity, is the ground on which Mrs. Dray-
ton asks release from her marriage tie.
Mr.. Drayton's answer was prepared and
filed by Lawyer Alva Clark of Somcrville.
n. J.. who appears as counsel for Mr..
Drayton in the original action brought by
that gentleman. The reply is long docu-
mcnt-longer indeed than any OF the pa
pcrs before filed in this noted case. Mrs.
Drayton's suit is not a cross bill in tho
usual sense of the term, but is a separate
and independent action. and as such must
be triod Independently and separately from
the suit brought by the husband.
He Was Charged With Desertion.
Thus, while the suits are akin and one
is meant to affect the other, they are
brought in such n manner that the allega-
tons brought forward by Mrs Drayton to
support her claim for a divorce are not
materially affected by the allegations of
her husband 1t would appear that Mrs.
Drnytnns counsel had fCrcstalled Mr..
DraytOn, and the best position is now held
by Mrs. Drayton Had the suit by Mrs
Draytnn boon brought an answer to tho
suit uf the husband. the issues could and
would have been joined, and the two cases
would have been tried together. Thon the
vice chancellor before whom the case would
come would decide then and there which
of the two contestants was entitled to the
decree. Instead of this, Mrs Drayton's
| suit must now be tried first and indepcnd-
emily OF that brought by Mr. Drayton.
1t is understood now that Mr.. Drayton
| will not prevent his wife obtaining the
divorce and will enter no dofenSe except SO
much as is necessary to protect himself
and his reputation as n husband and n
| father.
1t is known, too. that If Mrs. Drayton
| can obtain the decree ON the ground of do
| scrtinn after he is done defending his char
aCtCr, he will make no hloCtiOnS. provided
| and right here the only possible hitch
will "Ccur-ho is given the custody of all
| nf tho children for, and absolutely.
| He will not C"mprumISr ON this point
| II Mrs Draytnn fails To obtain n dcCrce
| ON the Eruu.d chosen by her to secure it,
| Mr., Draytun will then proceed at once to
| press his suit ON the ground of desertiun
| to trial. There seems To be a desire on
both sides to prevent the facts and alleged
facts becoming II matter of public record
Lawyers Alva Clark and II. V. Lindahury
have agreed Ia sottlo the case, if possible
| through Mrs Drayton's suit.
| MIR Draytun answer is n denial of tn
allegations of his wife so far as they affect
him personally outside OF the act Of dcsCr-
| tion.
MIR. Drayton's Answer.
Tho answer first rccites several facts as
SIT forth in previous papers in the two
| suits. and continues As follows:
| Although the legal residence of this
defendant and his wife was in Bernards
| township, Somerset county, \. j., until
! on or about the 18th day Of January. 1899,
yet during this time they were travelling
| i'll England, and while temporarily So
journing in London the said petitioner
and this defendant separated. The petit
TONER resides sometimes in New York,
| sometimes III England, SulneGllnoS III
| Franco, and this defendant believes she is
now in the city Of New York. but this
defendant denies that such separation was
a dcSrrtion on his part the petitioner be-
| ing fully advised of this defendant 5 move
ments and his reasons therefor
And this defendant, in answer to that
| part of the petition which charges that
while they wcrr temporarily sojourninG in
the city OF London this defendant deserted
his wife and returned to America, being
moved thereto as the petition charges by
cruel and unjust suspicious as to the mar
ital fidelity, denies the said charge and
says that, although they have not since
lived together. yet he never willfully. con-
tinuouSly and ohst inately deserted the said
petitioner. nor did he ever desert her,
and this defendant therefore, prays to b
hence dismissed. "