New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-24

suspicion OF her inndellty. Deserton IL never
justified except when 1t is shown by clear and sat
isfactory proof that the has been offended
against as to warrant. his instance decree
Of divorce judicial separation.
"If the defendant" says Chancellor McGill.
would rely upon charge OF in1dcity as a de-
fence against her charge OF desertion. he must
prove this charge. There IL no evidence that II
was the intention OF the defendant. at the time he
left the petitioner II institute suit for divorce
on the ground OF her inhdell;y. lie dd. in fact
commence such a suit In Jane, 1894. time so re-
mote from the commencement OF the separation
that more than the period prescribed by law within
which deserton must continue 10 constitute a
cause for divorce had interviewed, and thereby q
cause for divorce had become available TO her
Even after the lapse Of that time his suit not
prosecuted with diligence. IL his suit had been
brought promptly and In good faith after the
separation. the time consumed by II. during which
the law does not require him to live with his Wife
would not be computed as part OF the statutory
period necessary to the desertion which will au-
thorize a decree for divorce. but It's institu
ton after such statutory period OF deserton was
complete will not avail defence to suit for
divorce on the ground Of desert!on. It was the
husbands duty to act expeditiously. 80 that his
wife should not remain longer than necessity re-
qured. II guilty, until convicted. and II inno-
cent, under the shadow OF a scandaious and dis
graceful charge"
THE CHANCELLOR'S REVIEW.
Chancellor McCill holds that there Is no proof OF
collision between Mr.. and Mrs. Drayton TO pro-
the divorce. 1t is not collision, he says. for
them to wish their MATRIMONIAL relations severed.
at is noted" says the Chancellor that In his
answer after denying the desertion charged. the
defendant adds the significant language that his
wife was fully advised OF his movements and his
reasons therefor. which appears to me to be the
covert reiteration OF his charges against his WIFE,
sufficient 10 morfy and insult her. without putting
him to the necessity OF proving his charges and
tends to show that. when answered. Mt least he did
collusvely act with her. for In that event It In
not probable that he would have made this
sary thrust"
The evidence in the case has not been filed but
the Chancellor refers TO II. Hallett Alsop Bor-
rowes name does not appear In his references, but
mention is made Of zone b., a neighbor." named
as correspondent In Mr.. Draytons suit against
his wife.
Tho Chancellor reviews the troubles OF the family
some what as follows:
One evening in October. 1891. he says upon Mrs.
Drayton's return home from New-York, her hu.
band accused her Of intimacy with one b., a neigh
Dor The next morning Mrs Drayton went to her
fathers house at Rhinebeck and there she remained
a month when. by persuasion Of her family the
Draytons and their four children went 10 England.
IT that country the couple lived nomnally together.
Mr.. Drayton adhering to his belief In his wfes in
fidelity. and refusing to share her room to ac
company her when she went out refusing TO remain
In her company when they left alone together.
HALLETr ALsOP BoRRowE SUMMONED
II was In consequence Of this state Of affairs that
Mrs Drayton decided upon legal separation. She
was much distressed In mind and unhappy. Having
no one IN England to consult. she telegraphed to
America to b.. who went at once to England. Mrs.
Drayton met him at her hotel. and he arranged .
meeting for her with his lawyer at his hotel She
went TO the hotel. but the lawyer was late In ap-
pearing. and Mrs. Drayton and b. went into an
other room. In which they were attended by
walter. While they were at luncheon Mr.. Dray-
ton and two men, evidently detectives. entered the
room and after Identifying Mrs. Drayton. departed