The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-03-24
THE AsTOR SCANDAL.


Mr.. j. Coleman Drayton Obtains an
Absolute Divorce.
Trenton. n. j.. March 2s-Chanceilor
McIiil flied a decree today granting an alb
soIute divorce to Mrs. Charlotte Coleman
Drayton from J. Coleman Drayton on the
ground OF desertion. Mrs. Drayton ts
daughter OF the late William Aston. In the
decree the chancellor saws:
1T Is impossible TO escape the convic-
ton that the defendants suspicious OF his
wife's infidelity were not destitute Of foun-
dation In questionable circumstances at
least, but fail 10 find any judicial prece-
dent which holds that under a statute SIM
ilar to that OF this state a husband may
with impnnity be guilty Of desertion OF his
wife merely because he believes her. even
under gravely suspicious circumstances. to
have been guilty of adultery. Desertion,"
the chancellor holds, lis justified only
when II II shown by clear and satisfactory
proof that the deserving party las been SO
offended against as TO authorize at his in
stance a decree for divorce or judicial sep
aration. II the defendant would rely upon
his charge Of adultery as a defense against
her charge Of desertion he must prove 1t.
There Is no evidence that 1t was the inten-
ton OF the defendant at the time he left
the petitioner to institute suit for divorce
on the ground Of adultery. He did. in fact.
commence such a suit in June. 1884 a time
separation that more than the period pre-
scribed by law in which desertion must
continue TO constitute a cause for divorce
had interviewed. and thereby cause for
divorce had become available TO her. and
even after the lapse OF that time hts suit
was not prosecuted with diligence. The
mere institution of a suit for divorce on
the ground of adultery will not avail as a
defense to a suit for divorce. but the
af ad, he Qd W
the husbands duty to act expeditio,Isly, so
that his wife should not remain longer
than necessary. IL guilty, ui.convtcIed, and,
IL innocent. under the shadow of such a
scandalous and dlsgraceful charge"
The chacellor finds that there was no
collision to secure a divorce. In the de-
cree reference 10 the testimony Is made.
but the chancellor does not mention Haiiett
Allsop Borrowe by name. One b." how
ever. is mentioned as having been named
as correspondent IL the suit brought by
Drayton against hts wife. Borrowe was
correspondent In that suit.
In reviewing the Testimony. the chancel-
lor says II appeared that Drayton ques-
toned his wife's fidelity while they were
living at Bernardsville, 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. While there the estrangement
widened, and Mrs. Drayton, according to
her own testimony. became unhappy and
miserable and determined that separation
was necessary. Having no one in whom TO
confide. she telegraphed to America for
b and he met her at a London hotel.
where arrangements had been made for her
to meet an American lawyer. The law
yer war 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
Drayton and two men. presumably detec-
tives. entered and identified her. afterward
departing. After this. in accordance with
an arrangement between her lawyer and
her husbands lawyer. Mrs. Drayton went
to Wimbledon to bid her children good bye.
She then went 10 Paris TO meet her father.
who persuaded her to seek reconciliation
for the sake OF the children. The chan