The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-12-26
MATRIMONIAL TANGIE
Tn DIVORCE COURTS s.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DUELL CASE.
Plaintiff Married Three Times, CAGE
to One Woman and Twice to
Another, Both of Whom
Are Alive.

Albert E. DueII is Involved in a matri-
moniaI tangle and is endeavoring to have
it unrayeied by the local divorce courts
He is thrice married, once to one woman
and twice to another. both of whom are
stiu living. In addition to this he was
under the firm belief that he was twice
divorced from Mrs. DueIl No. 1.
The circumstances stated were developed
in proceedings for divorce instituted by
Mr.. Duon against Mrs Phoebe A Duell,
! who is wife No. /, also in proceedings fled
by her 10 have the decree Of divorce grant
ed her husband annulied, and in his an
swer and cross-biIl to this latter suit.
The First Divorce.
On December Il, 1900. Mr. Duell was
granted d divorce in the local courts from
his wife. Mrs. Phoebe a. Duell. on the
ground of desertion. IN July last she fled
bill in equity asking that this decree
be set aside as null and void. on the
ground mat she was not given an oppor-
tunity to make a defence. This. she de
cIares. was oecasioned by her husband not
stating in the papers her proper place of
residence. She say Mr.. Duell stated in
his bill of complaint that she resided at
Medina. y Y. when, in fact. she resided
at Seneca Falls, y. Y Because of this,
she says. she knew nothing of the pro-
ceedings for divorce filed against her.
She also alleges that there were other
irregularities in the proceedings. Be
cause of these mistakes, she says, her
husband was granted a decree of divorce
from her on the ground of desertion.
Mistake as to Wife,. Residence.
In his answer 10 this particular decIara-
ton, Mr. Duen states that Medina was
| given as the place Of residence of his wife
by mistake. He says he informed his at
| torney that his wife lived at Seneca Falls,
y. y. but that she frequently visited Me
dina. On account of the mention OF Ne
dina, his counsel, ne says, mistook it for
her place OF residence and so stated in
the petition for divorce. He, however,
does not claim his disvorce on account OF
this mistake. and to show this. does not
stand on the decree already granted him,
but IS willing 10 fight the matter over
| again before he courts. In support of this
claim in addition to his answer 10 the suit
Of his wife to have his decree anRulled
he files a cross bill asking for divorce on
the ground OF desertion-
More than fifteen years ago SIR DuelI
| sought divorce from his wife in the courts
of Chicago He employed counsel, who, he
says. Informed him that he had been grant
ed a decree OF separation from his wife.
Defrauded lay n Lawyer
On the strength OF this statcmeal Afr.
DueI says that n 1885 he was married to
Fannie H. seeley at Auburn. n y. Some
time after that all his papers, including
the alleged decree OF divorce granted
him in the Chicago courts were destroyed
by fire He then sent the clerk OF court
at Chicago to secure a certified copy OF
his decree. It was not until then. MI
DuelI declares, that be discovered that he
| had been fooled and defrauded b. the CHI
| cago lawyer. -
| Upon learning his mistake he declares
mat he applied for divorce srom Mrs.
DueH No I in the local courts. which
was granted him or December Il. 1900
Immediately after this he says ne and
Mrs Duen No went 20 Rockville, Nd
and were remarked Then. when wife No
l fled q petition TO have the decree grant
| ed hi-u in the local court aunuiied, he filed
| his answer and also q eross-bil asking
/ again for divorce