New-York tribune., 1901-05-28
NEWPORT DIVORCE CASE.
ELLIOTT AND BOWEN CASES DECIDED IN
FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS.
TBY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRIpUyE. !

Newport r. l., May 27.-In the Appellate Division
Of the Supreme Court to-day Judge William w
Douglas presiding, the divorce docket was disposed
Of. DEGREES were ordered granting the applica-
lions Of Sallie Hargous Elliott against Dunca,
Elliott, Augusta Floyd Bowen against Herbert w
Bowen and Sophie NJ. S. Hume against Woltomar
II. II. Hume, 10 the first two petitioners being
granted the custody of the children
In the of Elliott agt Elliott though the de-
fendant was represented by counsel, no witnesses
were present and there was no real contest The
plaintiffs case was presented entirely in the form
Of depostiOns. which Were read by her attorney
The allegations were wilful deserion for the
three years and neglect to provide necessities for
herself and the children Citation was served on
March 3. 1901. at Manila. on the defendant. who
officer in the 26th Regiment recently re-
turned from the Philippines.
The plaintiff in her deposition. which was made
in May. 1900, said she married in this city in
September, 1891, and has since lived in New-York
and elsewhere, but most of the time in Newport.
where she has occupied a leased house since two
years ago this spring. Since about a year after
their marriage her husband it is alleged has
shown her only neglect. Three years ago Mr.
Elliott left her. telling her he going TO Europe
and though there has been quarrel between
them they have not since lived together, nor has
she had any communication with him except
through counsel There are three children the
Oldest seven years old and the youngest three and
a half. Soon after leaving her Mr. Elliott entered
the army at the beginning of the Spanish war and
h~s since been serving lieutenant. She has
been obliged TO receive pecuniary assistance from
her brother.
Dispositions from her sister. Arnetta H De For
est and her brother-in-law, George B. De Forest
confirmed the plaintiffs story of neglect and fail
to support, further stating that plaintiff was
a proper person to have the care of the children.
In the Bowen against Bowen divorce case here to-
day the only evidence presented was in the form
Of dispositions ard offered entirely in behalf
Of the plaintiff. Citation was served defendant
March so. 1901. at Teheran. Persia the charges
being desertion for five years or longer and neg
lect 10 provide
The petitioner stated that she was married in
New-York in February. 1895. by Archbishop Cor
Iigan. She was then twenty-one years old. and her
Iona, at home leave. was forty-two or forty
three. Later he became consul general Soon after
their marriage Mr.. Bowen, the allegation stated.
desired her to deed him certain personal prop
erty which she had inherited. which upon the ad-
vice OF her father. she declined TO DO. After they
up again. He threatened. the plaintiff alleged. to
ruin her reputation If she refused to sign
home TO her father, he took il from her forcibly
ard used insulting language. She became Ill and
left her husband. going to her grandfather VINO
in Barcelona month later she returned.
but was able TO remain with her husband only
about a month, when she left him finally in July,
1885, i've months after her marriage;
Her child born in the following De-
cember. She returned 10 America in 1896,
and since February, 1850. has resided in New
Persia. but he has done nothing, according to the
statement, toward her support or that of the
The deposition of Mrs. Bowens maid, who
with her from the time she left school until some
time after the marriage stated that il was impos-
sibse for the plaintiff TO live with her husband in
Barcelona.