Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1896-03-24
MRS. DRAYTON DIVORCED.
The Judge Granted the Decree but Gave Both
Parties Good Lecture on the
Subject.

Trenton, N j., March 23.-Charlotte
Augusta wife of j. Coleman Drayton, re-
eeived her decree Of divorce from Chan
cellor McGill this morning. The decree
was filed in the office of the clerk in chan
Gerry and states that it is allowed on the
ground of desertion. The opinion accom-
panying the decree is rather lengthy
one. In it the chancellor says that 1t Is
impossible to escape the conviction that
MIR. Drayton's suspicious of his wifes in
fidelity were not destitute of foundation
in questionable circumstances at least
but, the chancellor continues, there is no
decision holding that a husband may
with impunity be guilty of desertion of
his wife here merely because of suspicion
of her infidelity. Desertion is never JUS
titled except when it is shown by clear
and satisfactory evidence that he was
so offended against as to warrant, at his
instance, a decree for divorce, of judicial
separation.
"If the defendant" says Chancellor
McGill, would rely upon adultery as a
defense against her charge of deSertfon
he must prove 1t. There is no evidence
that it was the intention of the defend
ant at the time he left the petitioner to
institute a suit for divorce on the ground
of her adultery. He did, in fact, COM
mence such a suit in June, 1884, time
so remote from the commencement OF the
separation that more than the period
prescribed by law, within which deser-
for divorce, had intervened, 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
promptly and in good faith after the
separation the time consumed by it, dur
ing which the law does not require him
to cohabit with his wife, would not be
computed as part of the statutory pro-
ceeding necessary to the desert1on which
will authorize decree for divorce, but
it's mere institution after such statutory
period of desertion was complete will not
avail as a defense to a suit for divorce
on the ground of desertion. 1t was the
husbands duty to act expedftiousiy so
that his wife should not remain longer
than necessity required, If guilty, until
convicted, and If innocent under the
shadow of a scandalous and disgraceful
charge"
Chancellor McGill holds that there is
no proof of collusion between Mr.. and
Mrs Drayton to procure the divorce. 1t
is not colluson, he says, for them to wish
their matrimonial relations severed.
The evidence in the case has not been
filed, but the chancellor refers to it. Hal
lett Allsop Borrowes name does not ap-
pear in his reference, but mention is
made of zone b., a neighbor," named as
correspondent in Drayton's suit against
his wife.
The chancellor says that the separa-
ton of Mr.. and Mrs. Drayton was of
more than two years duration, and that
the desertion was willful continued and
obstinate. The question, then, was
whether such desertion was justified
The divorce proceedings commenced by
Mr.. Drayton in June, 1884, were at once
answered by his wife, who denied his
accusations. He produced no proofs to
substantiate his accusations, and failed
to bring his case to a hearing. In an
swer to his wife's suit for desertion Mr..
Drayton did not reiterate his charges of
inidelity, but contented himself with
denying the truth of the charge of de-
sertion.
Mrs. Drayton is the third daughter of
the late William Astor, sister of John ia
cob Astor, Mrs. Orme Wilson and the late
Mrs j. Roosevelt.