Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-10-10
RECONCILIATION DENIED
Mrs. Ames Says She Has Not Ordered Her
Divorce Case Dismissed.
Her Husband Presented the Order In
PersOn-PFObable Future Proceed
fnGs-This the Second Suit.

1t was said at the city hall this after
noon that Mrs. Lucy H. Armes. who. ac-
cordtng to the records of the court, yes
terday- directed the dismissal Of her suit
for divorce from Maj. George A. Armes.
will ask the court to set aside such disposi-
ton of the case.
As exclusively stated in The Star, Maj
Armes yesterday presented to Mr.. Meigs
one Of the clerks of the District Supreme
Court, an order purporting to be signed by
his wife, directing that the case be dis
missed. The following is copy of the or
der of dismissal:
Lucy H. Armes VS.. George A. Armes.
Eq. No. 1892. The clerk will please enter
the above named cause dismissed. October
., 1896. Lucy H. Armes. Witness: Norman
r. Metcalf."
Mr.. Meigs thereupon entered the suit dis
missed by the complainant But Mrs.
Armes now denies the reported reconcilia-
ton between Maj Armes and his family,
and Mr.. Young. the clerk of the court. in
formed Star reporter this afternoon tina [
he understands Mrs. Armes' counsel will
ask the court to set aside the dismissal of
the case. He also said that the case should
not in any event have been entered dismiss
ed until the costs had been paid. When in
formed that Mrs Armes now contends that
there has been no dismissal Of the suit by
her. but only a change made in her form of
application. Mr.. Young said he knew moth
ing more than the record discloses.
Mr.. Siddons. of counsel for Maj. Armes.
when questioned about the matter, stated
to Star reporter this afternoon that he
was aware that negotiations were pending
between Major and Mrs Armas directly
respecting a dismissal Of the suit, and he
has no reason to doubt that Mrs. Armes
signed the order of dismissal, and not un-
til after its full import and effect had been
explained to her.
Was the Second Suit.
The suit dismissed yesterday by Mrs.
Aimes was the second riIed by her, the
first having been instituted ~ her July II,
1894. That was dismissed by her November
2s 1894.
The second suit was filed by Mrs. Armes
the 18th Of last April, and although the
papers in the case were withheld from pub
LEGATION, it is understood that Mai Armes
was again charged with cruelty. This Sec
Old suit was vigorously prosecuted by
mrs. Armes, her husband no less vigorously
defending. Pending the final disposition Of
the suit, Mrs Armes was allowed by the
court certain alimony and counsel fees an 4
last summer. because of his failure to obey
such orders of the court, he was arrestei
and compelled to either go to Jail or pay
the amounts in arrears.
He chose to do the latter, but last mon h
| 1t was again claimed he was in arrears. and
an order to show cause why he should moi
be again adjudged in contempt of court wa.
issued against him. This rule was Wed
nesday last made returnable on the 10Th in
slant. Pending his refusal or failure las
summer to pay the alimony and counse
fees in arrears, the property of Major
Armes was ordered sequestered by tins
court, the major having left the jurisdiction
of the court. The sequestrator, Mr.. PeytoI
Gordon, took charge of the property. Dur
found. it is said. that Major Armes had il
| advance collected about all the rents and
profits thereon.
Maj. Armes himself brought Mrs. Armes
dismissal of her suit to the clerk OF the
court yesterday, Ind explained that he Is
confident that If it had not been for the in.
reference of outside persons his wife
would never have asked for divorce either
last April or even two years ago. He also
| intimated, it is undo rstood. that a complete
reconciliation has taken place between hin
and Mrs. Armes.