The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1901-05-23
TEST SUIT.
Wife's Right to Sue for
Alienation Of Affections
to Be Decided.
MRS. N'KENNA is PLAINTIFF
She Accuses Mrs. Algeo of
Securing Her Husbands
Love.

Love.
If the suit of Josephine McKenna VS..
Barbara Algeo, which was begun in the
| Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, goes
to the jury and reaches a verdict it will
establish precedent in this State that
will hereafter give a wife the right to
sue for the alienation of her husbands $
affections. The plaintiff in the action is
the wife of Detective John E. McKenna
of the Lackawanna Railroad. She asks
| SIS 900 damages from Mrs. Barbara Algeo,
a widow living at No. 1929 Park avenue,
Hoboken, who she says, deprived her of
| her husbands comfort, society and as
| sistance, by enticing him from her and
| thereby removing him from her influence
and wifely control
! The preliminary skirmish in the legal
battle over the affections of the detective
| husband took place yesterday afternoon
when, before trial jury was drawn, JUS
| tice Collins consented, after counsel on
both sides had agreed, to hear argument
on motion by Counsellor John I. Weller,
/ representing the defence, to dismiss the
suit on the grounds that under the COM
mon law a wife could not sue except in
| joinder with her husband. He contended
that as the pleadings only mentioned the
wife the pleadings were at fault.
Mr.. Weller said it would be an absurd
proposition to amend the pleadings to join
the husband in the suit, as the husband
| is. under the law, entitled to all moneys
derived from such an action, and he would
be the gamer by reason of his alleged
| misconduct.
| Lawyers William H. Speer, Jr., and
Robert Carey, who represented the plain
| tiff, as well as counsel for the defence,
admitted that there was no precedent in
this State, although Lawyer Weller called
| attention to the case of Bartle VS.. Bartle,
before Judge Swayze in the Essex Circuit,
which he said had resulted in a non-suit
ON the grounds he advanced.
Lawyer Speer in reply denied the con-
| tention of defendants counsel that there
was no statute under which a suit of this
character could proceed. He insisted that
under the twenty-fourth section of the
practice act wife had the right to sue
alone in cases of the kind. He held that
| the statutes gave. a wife the right to sue
in this manner to recover damages for
personal property or to her reputation.
| Mr. Speer contended that a husband and
wife had a joint property in each others.
society, which in itself was material
something, that upon the enticement of
one from the other constituted property
right such as was. contemplated by the
| statute.
| Justice Collins decided that on the briefs
and law offered by the plaintiffs counsel
| the case did lie and it must proceed to
| trial. If it now passes the non-suit stage
| and reaches the jury it will be at once
| taken to the upper courts and the ques-
| ton whether or not the relationship of
husband wife does not establish prop
| erty right in each, and also that a wife
may sue or may not sue Independent of
| her husband.
| Lawyer Robert Carey in opening for the
| plaintiff this morning said that Mr.. Nc
Kenna and his wife were married twenty
| two years ago and had had six children,
all living, the youngest of whom is four
years of age. They lived happily at No.
25 Prospect street in June, 1899, when Mr..
Carey said, McKenna began to absent
himself from his meals, then at nights
and finally for weeks, until he ceased to
some home altogether.
Mrs. Algeo, he said, was widow whose
husband died about four years ago, leav-
ing will disposing of large estate, con-
sisting of both real and personal property
The widow was left life interest in their
residence on Park avenue, and a life in
4 terest in one-half of the personal prop
erty, which consisted of money in bank,
on condition that she remain single.
Finally, said Mr.. Carey, McKenna went
to board at the widows house. They be-
came very friendly. She called him Jack
and he called her Barbie. Together they
went to race tracks and she looked after
his clothes. They lived together as man
and wife.
'In September, 1899, after McKenna had
absented himself for several weeks, Mrs.
McKenna learned that he was spending
his time at Mrs. Algeos house. She went
there, expostulated with Mrs. Algeo and
told her that McKenna was her husband
and that he had six children.
''The widow continued Mr.. Carey,
told the wife that she knew that Nc
i Kenna was married but that she didn't
know he had hildren. The widow said
to Mrs. McKenna:-'Oh, he wouldn't leave
me for you
Mrs. McKenna was the first witness
called. She was dressed in black and
wore glasses. All of the children of the
couple were in court.
The plaintiff told of her marriage to
McKenna at st. Mary's Church in 1878,
and said that they had lived in Gregory,
Twelfth and Prospect streets in this
city. During all of their married life Nc
Kenna was a model husband, kind and
attentive, and they were very happy.
HE was lovely husbands said Mrs
1Ez ,zenna, until June, 1SsS The Wit
ness then testified to the story as out
lined in her counsePs opening.