Waterbury Democrat., 1902-04-30
LIVED SIXTEEN YEARS APART

Realizing after sixteen years that she had been too nasty ill obtaining di- yorce from her husband, and that be was innocent of the charges made against him, Mrs Sarah Lockwood, for the sake of her 1S-year-old daughter, sent for her former husband. and the other day the happy man and woman became reconciled as Judge Marean, in the supreme court, Brooklyn, set aside the old decree.
 T was too proud to give in at the beginning" said Mrs Lockwood, "but the girl was growing up with a blignr upon her life and I sent for my hus- band. He called four weeks ago. Ollr daughter met him at the door. She had not the faintest idea to whom sne was speaking and could hardly believe me when I told her.
 Frederick B. Lockwood. a well to do architect, is the husband, and he joined with his wife in asking Judge Marean for their sakes and for that of their pretty daughter, Nellie, to set aside the old divorce and restore them to tIe condition in which they were before the decree was signed. Judge Afarean smiled as he granted their prayer, and Nellie threw her arms around the neck of her father, whom she had not seen since her babyhood until a few days ago. His wife laid her hani affection ately on his shoulder and said. ssYon are coming home now, Fred. are yon nOt?"
 Lockwood turned away his face fo hide the tears which were stlpd.nr +, llls eyes and then with his wife and daughter went to his home at No 1nl Quincy street.
 Lockwood's story is a strange ore. lie Dlames his wife's brother vincent Many, for the separation which lasted So long. Many, he says. was his enemy and carried falsehoods to h;s wife He toll her, according to the husband, that Lockwood was making love to other women.
 We were young and hot tempered ,, the Wife says in the affidavit which she attached to her husbands peIition Tor the annulment of the old lecrec.
 Mrs Lockwood says she believed Many, and brought suit for q divorce as counter suit to the action for sep ara ton he had begun against Ter. The husband says that because of Manv,s l interference life had become so nn- pleasant that he did not contest the charges, and that Many was the only witness against him. The ,lecroe of divorce was entered against Lockwood i'll June, 1885, by the judge of the old city court who tried the case. He gave the wife SIP q week alimony and inc custody of the child, Nellie, who was then an infant in arms.
 1 Lockwood at that time had an offico III New York and was doing q large | 0# = tor many years his wife heard nothing or nm. She searched for him through Newport, Philadelphia and other cities. put her search for ten years was in l vain. Then she discovered tha. Lock wood had gone to Washington, cb- tained employment under the govern menu. and after time started in busi- ness for himself. Recently shn ,liseoy. cred that he was in the habit If visit. ing New York, and went before q judge or the supreme court with au appIica ton for an order of arrest. She ob tained a Judgment against him fo, more than $60O0 unpaid alimonv
 Tn her affidavit at that time Mr. Lockwood said she had supported her. self and her daughter, but that Ter eyesight was failing and poverty was threatening her.
 Lockwood was arrested on the order about month ago and kept for d nigh Ill Ludlow street jail. His wife wen1 to see him. and when they met the oll love returned and the long separated husband and wife embraced each ctl,e, and concluded to bury the past Tht husband told the wife that he vas in nocenf of the charges Many had made agalnst him, and convinced her thas
 his story was true. A few days late the order for the arrest of Lockwood
 was vacated at the request of Mr, Lockwood. The sequel to this actior
 was the petition for the annulInent O
 the divorce decree the other day.