The times., 1901-06-13
A ADECREE TOR MRS. CLARKE
Granted a Divorce Yesterday on
the Ground of DesertiOn.
Sequel to the Sensational Suit Tried
at Pits5urE Last summer - Brief
Time Occupied by the Litigation
Practically No contest Made.


at Pits5urE Last Summer - Brief
Time Occupied by the Litigation
practically No contest Made.
Esther Bartlett Clarke. the daughter of
John D. Bartlett. OF this city, was yester-
day granted a divorce from her husband,
James King Clarke, of Pittsburg. Pa. The
decree. which is signed by Justice HaEner
recites that the separation is granted on
the ground Of desertion on the part OF
the defendant. Aside from the sensation
created by Clarke when he filed proceed
ings for divorce from his wife in the
Pennsylvania courts. the case is remark
able because of the brief space of time
elapsing from the day on which Mrs
Clarke filed her petition asking for di-
vorce and the signing of the decree yes
terday. Since the proceedings were in
stitUted by Mrs. Clarke only twenty-one
days have elapsed, making the litigation
the shortest in point of time ever known
in the local divorce courts.
The records of the Supreme Court of
the District show that Mrs Clarke filed
her petition for divorce on the afternoon
of May y last. Five days later her hus-
band placed his answvi on file and on the
day following the ease was referred TO
Johu w Hulse, examiner in chancery to
take testimony On the next day, May IS.
the testimony of Sve witnesses was heard
and the evidence filed with John R.
Young, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the
District
AT the taking of the testimony Mrs
Clarke was represented by Worthington
Heald & Frailey, as counsel, and Clarke
who was not present, was represented by
Attorneys Gordon & Gordon. On Mon
act 4I,,, i.
Hagner without argument by counsel on
either side
The witnesses who testified on behalf
of Mrs. Clarke before the examiner were
John d. Bartlett father of the complain
ant; Dr. Francis Z. Morgan. DR.. w. D.
Writ. Frederick Benjamin, and Mrs. Nina
Bartlett Writ Mrs. Clarke's sister.
clarke offered io evidence in refutatiOn
TO the allegation OF desertion made
against him by his wife In his answer
however. he stated that it was utterly
out OF the question for him TO live with
his wife This statement is substantially
the language of letter Clarke wrote to
his wife from Pittsburg on May IL 1899
While she was still at Atlantic CITY. where
he left her on May 4, only FIVE days be
lore. In the letter he said: 1t is utterly
out OF the question to live with you. on
account OF your SCandalous cOmQuct and
lnhumaR treatment of me / have finally
Ceclded never again to live with you -
In his petition filed in the PENNSYLVANIA
courts Clarke asked for divorce on
statutory grounds The testimony in the
case was submitted to a jury, which re-
fused TO return u verdict substantiating
the charges Clarke made against his
wife.
In her petition filed in the local courts
Mrs. Clarke asked for a divorce simply
on the ground Of deseTtion. In reciting
the circumstances which led to the hling
OF her suit she made no reference TO the /
proceedings instituted against her by her |
husband
She stated in her petition that she was !
married 10 the defendant in this city at !
the Church of the Epiphany on April p. /
1893. Immediately after her marriage she |
states that she accompanied her husband |
TO New York City and remained therein 7
I'll May 10: Frpr there She says they |
went went 70 atlantic City. where they stayed |
unll-S1ay i. On that date Mrs Clarke /
stated her husband left her at Atlantic /
City and went to PittsburE, Pa, and on I
May % she received letter from him, in /
which he said that he would never live |
with her again.
In response TO this letter Mrs Clarke /
stated that she went to Pittsburg to see /
her husband, but that she could not find ,
him there. He had left the city, she said, .
and she was not able TO learn where he (
had gone.
on June she stated she returned to |
this city and went to live with her father. |
larke alleges that her husband de- /
her on May p. 1899. less than a
after their marriage
suit of James King Clarke against /
e, which was tried at Pittsburg,
of the most sensational IN the
OF the divorce courts of this coun-
-E he plaintiff brought his suit
ry grounds, and his allegations
We're 50 startling that the attention Of
the whole country YVES drawn TO the liti-
CATION. The details were so revolving that
many newspapers refused to print the teS-
fimony, and it is to Mrs Clarke's credit
that the charges made Dy ner HusDa4-.
failed of proof.