The morning times., 1897-02-11
HE WANTS ALL HIS MAIL
Attorney Wills Objects to His Di-
vorced Wife Taking 1t.
They Conducted n Pension Business
Together at One Tirne-Her
Statement.

The suit filed yesterday by Walter H
Wills, the well known patent attorney
and claim agent against Mrs Norma W
Jones, as noted in The Evening Times, to
enjoin Mrs Jones from interfering with the
collection of mail addressed to w. II.
Wills & Co. gives promise Of some inter
esting developments when the case comes
up for hearing.
Tie parties 10 the proceedings were for
merly husband and wife, and carried ON
a business III the claims and patent line
under the firm name OF W II. Wills & Co.
There was separation and subsequent
divorce about seven years ago, and
division Of the business, each of the two
taking one-half OF the pension cases and
Mr.. Wills receiving all of the remainder.
II was also agreed that the unfinished
old business should be completed under
the old firm name, to avoid confusion.
a mutual arrangement was made whereby
Mr.. and Mrs. Wills should lift the mail
addressed to the old firm on alternate
days, and deliver each to the other that
which appertained to the cases not in the
hands Of the one receiving the letters.
1t is understood that this arrangement
was abandoned at the suggestion of Mr.
Wills, and the necessity for additional box
rent was thus obviatcd, he receiving all
of the letters and sending Mrs Wills her
share, as formerly.
This new arrangement was maintained
until recently, when, for reasons Of her own,
the former Mrs. Wills, now Mrs. Robert C.
Jones, notified the postmaster not TO de-
liver to Mr.. Wills the letters addressed to
rls lie {. q md I ha Etft
for the injunction followed.
Mrs. Jones was asked last evening to give
The Times a statement OF her side OF
1.-THE case, bat declined To talk about it
In respect to the declaration published
yesterday afternoon, attributed to Mr.
Wills, to the effect that he had procured
a divorce from her, Mrs. Jones said
you may say that Mr. Wills did not
get divorce from me. 1t was l who
procured The divorce, as the records VIII
show, and the charge that | have harassed
his business is not true. 1t is he who
has injured my business.
Another thing: His claim that he gave
me So, 500 at the time we were divorced
is absurd. The sum was paid to me as my
share of the pr oceeds OF a sale Of the prop
erty in which we were equally interested
and was mine. Hecould Il OF have prevented
me from getting it If he had tried. When
we made a division he left with me the
household effects to offset his law library
purchased with the firm s money; his law
education, paid for with the firm money,
and the patent business, of which he re-
ceived all. There was a fair understand
ing when the separation took place, and
l received what l was justly entitled to,
and no more"
Mr.. Wills stated last night that there
was but little of the business originating
under the old firm remaining to be settled,
and ne thought it rather singular under the
circumstances that Mrs. Jones should
undertake, after the lapse of about seven
years, to interfere with an arrangement
that had been heretofore mutually salts
factory. He had brought the suit, he said,
to protect his interests, and had nothing
TO say in addition to what had been in
Guided in his petition.