The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1906-11-10
VALIDITY Of THE
TIFFANY DIVORCE
IS ATTACKED

New York, Nov 10.-Burnett Y. Tiffany
and his wife, Lucille. will have to satisfy
the supreme court that each OF them was
legally free to marry at the time they
| became man and wife If Mrs Tiffany Is
10 remain in possession OF $500 worth OF
furniture which ornaments their home at
125 West Eighty-elghth street A divorce
granted in Rhode Island plays a promi-
nent part In the case.
The appellate division OF the supreme
J court in an opinion made public yesterday
orders a retrial OF the suit brought by
Edward Hosmer. the trustee in bank
ruptcy OF Burnett Y. Tiffany, against the
bankrupt and his wife.
The suit was tried some months ago
before Justice Mccall. who dismissed the
complaint, thus deciding in favor OF the
Tiffanys.
Burnett Y. Tiffany displeased his father
Charles l.. Tiffany, head OF the noted
jewelry firm, by marriage In 1883, and in
creased this displeasure by course OF
living which was not approved. From
then till the death the father allowed the
son SIS a week TO live on, though from
time 10 time he paid the young mans
most pressing debts Young Tiffany's
marriage resulted in a divorce, which
Emma N Tiffany secured In Rhode Is
land in 1891 on the ground OF desertion.
Young Tiffany allowed the suit to go by
default, service being made by substitu-
ton.
In 1902 Charles L. Tiffany died. leaving
an estate amounting TO about 100000.
This he divided between his children, all
save Burnett, 10 whom he left only an In
come OF $1,000 a year, with discretion IN
vested in the executors TO increase the In
come ii the young man reformed. The
son did reform to some extent In the opin-
ion of the executors and his income was
soon increased TO $4,000 a year, at which
figure II remains, Notwithstanding persist
ent litigation on Burnetts part TO secure
"A further increase.
A year after his fathers death Tiffany
married his present wife. who was not
wholly acceptable TO his relatives. Tiffany
and his wife agree in stating that-she
steadily refused TO marry him until he
had promised to furnish home for her
in expensive style and TO make her a
wedding present OF the furnishings. In
CARRYING out this agreement Tiffany In
Cured the furniture bills. but the firms
could not collect the money. and Tiffany
fled n petition in bankruptcy.
Then the firms sued the Tiffanys for the
return OF the furniture, but Justice Nc
Call decided that the furniture had passed
TO Mrs. Tiffany for valid consideration
and dismissed the case. During the hear
ing Justice Mccall upheld objections to
questions In regard to Mrs. Ttffany's
previous matrimonial record, the lawyers
for the creditors having tried to show
that a previous divorce of hers was In
valid under the decision OF the United
States supreme court in the notable Had
dock case.
Justice Houghton, writing the opinion
OF the appellate division reversing Justice
McCall's decision. says; after reviewing
all the facts connected with the alleged
ante-nuptial settlement. that as the only
consideration for the alleged transfer was
the marriage II is plain that If Mrs. T1f-
fany already had a husband living at the
date of the marriage she could not legally
perform her part OF the agreement and
therefore the consideration failed Hence
all evidence tending 20 establish her ina
blity to marry should have been admit
ted
Also. the court argues. II the Rhode ISL
and divorce obtained by the first Mrs.
Tiffany was invalid, as IL would seem TO
be on its face under the recent decisions
os the United States supreme court in the
Haddock case, then Tiffany had no right
TO remarry and was legally restrained
from attempting to carry out the alleged
agreement.
Justices Ingraham, Clarke and Scott
while agreeing in the decision of reversal
think that Tiffanys disability IL estab
lished. would have simply placed him in
the situation OF a man who had broken
promise to marry but who cannot neces-
sarily escape damages by proving disa-
bility.