The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-03-23
Divorce Granted to Mr.. and Mrs.
Coleman DraytOn.
Chancellor Gill, in His Decree
Granting the Divorce,
SAYS THE HUSBANDS
Suspicion of Infidelity was Not
Without Foundation.
How a Daughter of the AstOrs
Behaved With 3d."

TRENTON, N. ]. March 23.-ChancelIor
McGill filed decree today granting an
absolute divorce to Mrs. Charlotte Cole
man Drayton from J. Coleman Drayton,
on the ground of desertion. Mrs. Dray-
ton is the daughter of the late William
Astor. None of the evidence taken in
the case is on file in the chancery clerks
Office, all being in the possession
of the chancellor. In the beginning
the decree says: at is impossible to
escape the conviction that the defend
ants suspicious of his wife's infdelity
were not destitute of foundation in ques-
tionable circumstances at least, bnt l fail
to find any Judicial precedent which
holds that under statute similar to that
of this state husband may with impun-
ity be guilty of desertion of his wife
merely because he believes her even un-
der gravely suspicious circumstances to
have been guilty of infdelity.
"Desertion," the chancellor holds. sis
justified only when it is shown by. clear
and satisfactory proof that the deserting
party had been SO offended against as to
authorize at his instance a decree for
divorce or judicial separation.
"If the defendant would rely upon his
charge of infidelity as defense against
her charge of desertion, he must prove
it. There is no evidence that it was the
intention of the defendant at the time he
left the petitioner to institute a suit for
divorce on the ground of inhdelity.
He did in fact commence such a
suit in June 1894, time SO remote from
the commencement of the separation
that more than the period prescribed by
law in which desertion must continue to
constitute a cause for divorce had inter-
veued and thereby a cause for divorce
bod lah tn hnr n
after the lapse of that time his suit was
not prosecuted with diligence
"a mere institution of a suit for di-
vorce on the ground of inf1delity will not
avail as a defense to a suit for dl-
vorce on the ground of desertion.
The infdelity must be proved. It
was the husbands duty to act expedi-
tiously so that his wife should not re-
main longer than necessity required if
guilty unconvicted, and if innocent under
the shadow of such a scandalous and dis
graceful charge"
The chancellor finds that there was
no collusion on the part of the husband
and wife to secure divorce, and says
that the mere fact that both desired to
be divorced does not constitute collusion.
There must be an agreement.
In the DECREE reference is made to the
testimony, but the chancellor does not
mention Hallett Alsop Borrowe by name.
to- and "this one B." is mentioned as hav-
ing been named as a correspondent in the
suit brought by Drayton against his wife,
Borrowe was correspondent in that suit.
reviewing the testimony the chancel-
lor says Drayton questioned his wife's
fidelity while they were living at Ber-
nardsville, in this state, and that she then
went to her fathers home This was in
October 1891. In November a partial
reconciliation was effected between Mr..
and Mrs. Drayton. They then went to
| England and while there the estrange-
ment widened and Mrs. Drayton, accord
| ing to her own testimony, became un-
| happy and miserable and determined
| that separation was necessary. Having
no one in whom to confde, she tele-
| craphed to America for "B"
| and he met her at London
hotel where arrangements had been
made for her to meet an American law
yer. The lawyer was late in arriving
| and Mrs. Drayton and ''B' went into
another room where they had lunch,
a waiter being in the room with them.
| While they were in this room, Dra-ton
| and two men, presumably detectives.
entered and Unidentified her, after
ward departing. After this in
accordance with an arrangement
| between her lawyer and her husbands
| lawyer, Mrs. Drayton went to Wimble-
| don to bid her children goodbye. She
| then went to Paris to meet her father,
| who persuaded her to seek a reconcilia-
| ton for the sake of the children. The
| chancellor says he is satisfied that this
| effort at reconciliation was made in good
| faith by Mrs. DraytOn, but was rejected
| by her husband because of his continued
belief in her unfaithfulness. He points
| out that the legal time for bring
| ing suit for desertion had
elapsed and that the desertion was will
| full, continued and obstinate. The only
point, he says, was whether the desertiou
| was justifiable. He refers to the fact
that the husbands suit for divorce on
| the ground of infidelity was not brought
| until June, 1894, and that since that time
no proof of the infidelity had been ad-
| duced and that in the present suit the
| husband made no charge of infidelity,
| but contented himself with denial of
| the desertion."