The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1896-03-24
DlroRoE ron MRS. ORA rroN.


The Decree is Granted ON the Ground OF
Observation-Disclosures MoGin Files the
| Decree at Trenton-He Says Mr. Drayton's
! Suspicious May Have Had Foundation,
| But lie Had No Right TO Desert His Vile
Merely Upon suspicion.
Trenton, March 2S,-Chsrlotte Angus
ia, wife of ]. Coleman Drayton, receiv-
ed her decree of divorce from Chancel-
lor McGill this morning. The decree
was filed in the office of the clerk OF
chancery, and states that it is allowed
on the ground of desertion.
The opinion accompanying the decree
is a rather lengthy one. In it the chan
cellor says that 1t is impossible to es-
cape the conviction that Mr.. Drayton's
suspicious of his wife's infidelity were
not destitute of foundation in ques-
tionable circumstances at least. but the
chancellor continues that there is no
decision holding that husband may,
with impunity, be guilty of desertion of
| his wife merely because of suspicion of
her infidelity
| DCoSLlloll Is never JuSllH6u, ne says
except when 1t is shown by clear and
satisfactory proof that the husband has
been so offended against as to warrant,
at his instance, decree for divorce or
judicial separation.
IF the defendant" says Chancellor
McGill, would rely upon adultery as
defence against her charge of desertion,
he must prove it, There is no evidence
that it was the intention of the defend
ant at the time he left the petitioner to
institute suit for divorce on the
ground of her adultery.
He did, in fact, commence such
suit in June, 1894, time so remote from
the commencement of the separation
that more than the period prescribed
| by law, within which desertion must
continue to constitute cause for di-
vorce, had INTERVIEWED and thereby a
cause for divorce had become available
to her; and even after the lapse of that
time, his suit was not prosecuted with
diligence.
IF his suit had been brought prompt
ly and in good faith after the separa-
ton, the time consumed by it during
which the law does not require him to
4 SoAstbiL Will lllS WIZ, Nouid liol w
computed as part of the statutory pc
Rod necessary to the desertion which
will authorize decree for divorce, but
Its mere institution after such a statu
tory period of desertion was complete
will not avail as defence to a suit for
divorce on the ground of desertion.
.'It was the husbands duty to act ex-
peditiously, so that his wife should not
remain longer than necessity required,
If guilty, until convicted, and, IL inno-
cent, under the shadow of a scandalous
and disgraceful charge"
Chancellor McGill holds that there is
no proof Of collision between Mr.. and
Mrs Drayton to procure the divorce
1t is not collision, he says, for them to
wish their matrimonial relations sew
cred. The evidence in the case has not
been filed, but the chancellor refers to
it, Hallett Alsop Borrowers name does
not appear in his references, but men
ton is made of zone B., a neighbor,
named as correspondent in Mr.. Dray-
tons suit against his wife. !"
! The chancellor reviews the troubles
of the family One evening in October,
1879, he says, upon Mrs. Drayton's re-
turn home from New York, her hus-
band accused her of intimacy with one
B., a neighbor The next morning Mrs.
Drayton went to her fathers house at
Rhinebeck, and there she stayed a
month. when, by persuasion of her fam
lily, the Draytons and their four chill
dren went to England.
In that country they lived nominally
together Mr.. Drayton adhering to his
belief in his wife's fnffdeiity and refus-
ing to share her room or to accompany
her when she went out and refusing to
remain in her company when they
4 would be alone 1t was In consequence
of this state of affairs that Mrs. Dray-
ton decided upon a legal separation.
sShe was much distressed in nina
and very. unhappy says the chancel'
lor Having no confdant in England,
she teleeraphed to America to B., who
went at once to England. Mrs. Dray-
ton met him at her hotel, and he ar
ranged meeting for her with his law
yer at his hotel. She went to the hotel,
but the lawyer was late in appearing,
and Mrs Drayton and B. went into an
other room, in which they were attend
ed by a waiter.
"While they were at luncheon, Mr..
Drayton and two men, evidently detec-
tives. entered the room, and after iden-
tifying her departed. Later she saw
the lawyer referred to, and 1t was ar
ranged between this lawyer and her
husbands that she should go to VIM
bledon,i where her children were, and
bid them goodby.
She did so, and made several trips
to Paris to see her father, by whom
she was persuaded, for the sake of the
children, to seek a reconciliation with
her husband She exerted every effort
to effect reconciliation, but Mr.. Dray-
ton was obdurate, still insisting that
she had been unfaithful to her marriage
vows"
The chancellor says that the separa-
ton of Mr.. and Mrs. Drayton was of
more than two years duration, and
that the desertion was wilful, continued
and obstinate.
The question was whether such de-
sertion was justified. The divorce pro-