The Emmett index. [volume] (Emmett, Idaho) 1893-1925, 1895-05-18
MATRIMONIAL lNFELIclTlEs.
Hrs. Pratt Married Her Husband -Four
DnnleYs saxen TING. Married.


Mrs. Pratt Married Her Husband -Four
Times-The Dunlsys Seven Times Married
The amended complaint In tho case OF
Maggie Pratt against Spencer Charles
Pratt for separation on the ground OF
abandonment revealed state OF affairs
that created a decided sensation In New
York courtroom the other day. The
plaintiff in the case, although only 10
years old, has been married to the defend
ant four times, has begun action for al
yorce as many times and then discontin-
uec 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
suit begun by the first Mrs. Pratt for d.
vorce. As a climax to 1t all the lawyer
who brought the first Of the suits against
Pratt on behalf Of the alleged Mrs. Pratt
appeared as counsel for the young man he
had once prosecuted and protested most
Enormously against permission being CIV
en- to file the amended complaint.
The plaintiffs maiden name was Mag
gle Finnerty. The defendant is "a years
old, and, according to Maggie, has an in
come of $50 600 year, but this, he says,
tho plaintiff, at Railway, n. j., on May
IL, 1892, both giving fictitious names.
She was dissatisfied with this ceremony,
and they were remarked on June IA, 1893,
this time under their proper names, and
the marriage was duly witnessed.
In November, 1899. the defendants legal
wife obtained an absolute divorce from
him, Maggie Finnerty being named as
correspondent. In August, 1892, two
months before the granting Of the divorce,
the plaintiff says she learned for the first
time that the man she supposed was her
husband had another wife alive. Imme-
diately after the decree of divorce had been
granted to the real Mrs. Pratt the plain
tiff went to Philadelphia with the defend
ant, where they mutually agreed to live
together as man and wife, OF, In other
words, entered into a common law mar
riage. On July 4, 1898, the plaintiff and
defendant once more agreed to live togeth-
or as man and wife and entered into a
contract to that effect.
Now comes Chicago, as usual, with a
case that far excels in novelty the matri-
monial experiences of the New York cou-
pie. Witness the following from the Chi
| cago Tribune:
Mrs. Mary j. Dunley and j. S. Dunley
six times divorced and seven times mar
ried, were united for the latest and they
say the last time by Justice Randall
White the other day. IL was rather sur
prise to the groom, for he did not expect
to be one of the chief parties to a wedding
when he came into court. Instead he ex-
pected to answer to charges of assault and
battery and making threats to kill. The
| charges had been brought by Mrs Dunley
When the justice peered over his spectacles
and asked Mrs. Dunley to tell her tale OF
woe, she replied by pulling a marriage IL
cense from her shopping bag and asking
the court to marry her to the defendant.
But thought you were here to prose
cute him." said the court
II would rather marry him." said Mrs
Dunley. You see, we've been married
off and on for the last 90 years, and
don't see why we shouldn't get married
again."
"Humph So you think marriage will
be sufficient punishment for him, dc