Okolona messenger. (Okolona, Miss.) 1900-current, 1906-02-14

Mrs. Potter, First and second.

Two women are quArreIlnB over
which one, II either, shall drop
the name Mrs. James Brown Pot
Ter, although it il not quite clear
Why both should not do 80. The
controversy promises to assume
almost as tragic Importance as the
ancient feud that arose over which
Of the two Newport social leaders
should be entitled to be referred
to as "the'' Mrs. Astor. The
Potter complication came about
through the New York millionaire
happening to marry a couple Of
times. The first Mrs. james
Brown Potter, who is an actress
but divorced, insists upon her
perfect legal and sentimental right
to continue to be known as Mrs.
James Brown Potter. The second
and present wife Of the obliterated
husband haughtily announces that
there is really only one Mrs.
James Brown Potter, and that one
is herself.
The troubles OF the Potters
would be insignificant enough we're
it not that an interesting legal
question is involved that is OF
considerable importance. The
second Mrs. Jaihes Brown Potter,
who was Miss May Handy, Of
Richmond, Va, is said to be so
sensitive for fear she may be con-
fused with the first Mrs. James
Brown Potter, "a mere actress"
that she refuses to go to London
where the disagreeable person is
playing. 1t would be too utterly
terrible to be In the same city
where another woman is earning
her living and at the same time
wearing the name of Mrs. James
Brown Potter. II the actress
would only just drop "James"
and leave it Mrs. Brown Potter,
or call herself Cora Urquhart Pot
ter, or anything but the vestibuled
and socially exalted "Mrs. James
Brown" Potter.
There is very substantial rea
son why each OF the Mrs. POtters
seek to hold the name. Obvious
| " the latter wants to own the same
name as her husband, and in all
reasOnableness she is entitled to do
so. She couldn't very we'll call
herself Mrs. James Brown Smith,
and plain Mrs. J. B. Potter would
be horrifying. Mrs. James Brown
Potter is the name conferred upon
her a. the altar, along with all it's
prestige and potency on the bottom
Of a check. But the first Mrs.
James Brown Potter also had the
name given her in the regular way
and the decree Of the divorce made
no mention OF REIMBURSEMENT Of
the magical patronymic. Clearly,
unless her maiden name was legal
| Nv restored to her she was under
no obligation to resume it. BIT,
the first Mrs. James Brown Potter
is a woman OF refinement and self
dependence, it is likely she would
voluntarily give up the name, we're
it not that it has become q PROBES
sional trade mark with her. AS
Mrs. James Brown Potter she has
achieved high standing as an ac-
tress. She began in amateur thea
trIcals while a member Of the New
York $780," and became o prOfes-
sional much to the modification
Of Mr.. James Brown Potter's
family. In answer to her matri-
monial successors appeal that she
drop the name, she says that she
would do SO il il we're not that in
doing she would lose valuable
prestige. She is said to have
placed pecuniary value Of $3.50,
900 on her name, which Price. it
il also said, theaecOnd Mrs. James
Brown Potter il willing to give.
There the matter rests. II the
aaeond Mrs. James Brown Potter