The times., 1901-05-23
ON A CHARGE OF DBOERTION
Mrs. Esther Bartlett Clarke Files
Suit for Divorce.
The Plaintiff Makes No Reference
to the Litigation Instituted Last
Year by Her Husband-The Scnsn-
tionaI Case Mt PittsburE Recalled.


tionaI Case Mt PittsburG Recalled.
Esther Bartlett Clarke yesterday filed
suit for divorce against her husband.
James King Clarke. in the Supreme
| Court of the District, alleging desertion
as the grounds for the action. There is
no reference made in the petition hled
by Mrs Clarke TO the suit for divorce
filed against her some time ago by her
husband, and which resulted in mis-
trial in the Circuit Court at Pittsburg,
Pa, last fall.
Mrs. Clarke states that she was mar
ried to the defendant in this city at the
| Church of the Epiphany on April 26'
1899. Immediately after her marriage
she states that she accompanied her
husband to New York City, and re-
manned there until May 10. From there
she says they went to Atlantic NCity,
where they stayed until May u. on
that date Mrs Clarke states her hus-
band left her at Atlantic City and went
| to Pittsburg, Pa, and on May 20 she re-
ceived a letter from him, in which he
said that he would never live with her
again.
In response 10 this letter Mrs. Clarke
states 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 2, she states she returned to
this city and went to live with her
father. Mrs. Clarke alleges that her
husband deserted her on May 20, 1899.
less than month after their marriage.
She is represented by Worthington.
Heald & Frailey.
The suit of James King Clarke
against his wife, which was tried at
Pittsburg, was one of the most sensa-
tional in the annals of the divorce
courts of this country. The plaintiff
brought his suit on statutory grounds,
and his allegations were 50 startling
that the attention of the whole country
was drawn to the litigation. The de-
tails were so revolving that many news
papers refused to print the testimony,
and it is to Mrs. CIarke's credit that the
charges made by her husband failed OF
proof,
Counsel for the plaintiff made he
trial the occasion for giving detailed
proceedings of the honeymoon, during
which Clarke permitted his young bride
to be introduced 10 James j. Corbett,
and left her a large portion Of the time
in the society of other men. Certain of
his allegations were based on a bouquet
of violets which were said to have been
sent by one of his friends to his wife,
and the stains of the flowers were al
legged To have been discovered upon the
shirt bosom of a young man who was
named as correspondent
Mrs. Clarke denied the allegations of
her husband, and enlisted popular sym
pathy in her behalf by relating that
young Carnegie, one of her husbands
friends, had made an improper pro-
posal to her. and that her husband,
when told of the matter. failed to re-
sent it. She satisfied the court that her
wifely conduct had been pSoper, al
though she might have been guilty of
some harmless indiscretions.
Since the trial of the case at Pitts
burg various rumors have been afioat
concerning propositions for settlement
and reconciliation. The suit filed yes
terday is the first step taken by Mrs.
Clarke in her own behalf