The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-07-03
DECREE 0 WIFE
SUED CARLIN, ALLEGING
EXTREME CRUELTY.
Wed at 16, She Claims Husband Abused
Her-Infant vicarious Target
in One Instance.

After testimony in the divorce suit
brought by Mrs. Helen Carlin, now liv-
ing in New Brunswick, but a former
band, William Carlin. who now lives
with his parents in the lower end of the
city. was taken today before Vice
Chancellor Howell, the court an
nounced 1t considered the wife was
entitled to a divorce, and intention to
recommend that she be granted a de-
cree of divorce was asked for on the
ground of extreme cruelty. which
charge the husband denied in an an
swer, which declares that his wife de-
serted him without cause less than a
According to the papers in the case
the couple were married in this city in
1902, the bride, who was Miss Roers,
being just is years old. and the hus-
band a few years older. The separa-
ton took place less than a e later.
The testimony in support of the petit
toner's allegations of cruelty was given
by Mrs. Agnes Rogers, of 81 Lenox ave-
nue., who told of an incident early in
1 AuSuSls 1oOo, vi MdIhGl SIIGeN. O06
said she was passing along Market
street when she saw the defendant
strike his wife in the face with his fist.
The witness said the petitioner held her
baby in her arms.
A daughter of the foregoing witness,
Agnes, testified to a sequence of alleged
acts of violence. She described a visit
she paid to the Carlins while they were
living in Van Buren, street, when the
defendant threw a saucer at his wife,
the missile striking the baby which
Mrs. Carlin held in her arms, Just be-
low the eye, cutting its cheek. She also
described several alleged incidents In
Harburger's Hall and other places of
that character, on each such occasion
the petitioner being struck by Mr.. Car
lin in the face. witness averred.
Miss Irene Gehde, of 81 River street.
another friend of Mrs. Carlin, told of
a visit she made to Harburger's Hall
in with Mrs. Carlin, who was
seeking her husband to effect a recon-
Citation after the saucer-throwing Incl
dent, when Mr.. Carlin directed the
officer there to put them out.
The witness said that Mr.. Carlin fol-
lowed them to the street and struck
his wife in the face SO that her eye
was black and blue.
Philip Tully, of 81 Passaic avenue, a
friend of the proprietor of the hall at
Market and jackson streets, where one
of the acts of violence Is said to have
taken place. testified that he was present
when the defendant repeatedly struck his
wife in the face, causing the blood to pour
from her nose and face. The witness said
no one interfered because Carlin threat
ened to thrash anyone who "butted in"
Mrs. Carlin, the complainant. said she
was married in st. James's Church in No
Vember, 1902, the exact date she could not
fix. She gave full details of the incidents
described by the preceding witnesses.
About the incident that took place prior to
the birth of the baby, the witness testified
In a very low tone of voice, the court call
ing counsel to the bench so that they might
hear.
Her reason for leaving the city. the
witness said, was because of her fear of
the defendant. who had repeatedly threat
ened to either kill her or to throw acid
in her face.
'1He said he would kill me if 1 did not
leave the city" declared the witness; so
I thought to save trouble / had better get
work out of town If l could"
At the opening of the afternoon session
| Mr.. Kearns announced for the defendant
husband that he would submit no evidence
In behalf of his client. although Mr.. Car
lin was In court with a number of wit
| nesses. Vice-Chancellor Howell remarked
tina in that case he understood both sides
would rest. and on the assent of c. II.
Cowenhoven. counsel representing Mrs.
Carlin. and Mr.. Kearns. the husband. the
Vice-ChancellOr said he could then an
nounce a decision to recommend that the
petitioning wife be granted a decree of
divorce.
1.-THE evidence submitted in this case, +"
the court said, makes 1t quite clear that
the petitioner has made out a case. That
is my present opinion, speaking without
having read over the testimony. and she
is entitled to a divorce"
The court designated the case as one
falling exactly within the provisions of
the statutes referring to constructive deser-
tlon, and on this ground the court said he
would a decree in favor Of the
wife.