The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1908-05-10
WIFE AND EE-WIFE
BOTHER HARRISON
Lawyers Divorced Spouse
Arrayed Against Her
Successor.
Says He Has discriminating
Evidence For Sec
ond Suit.

The strangest development IN the
Strange Arthur W. Harrison sui. for
separation. which was brought again TO
public attention yesterday, when Mrs.
Mary Harrison filed a cross-bLl against
her husbands petition, is the fact that
Mrs. Leila Harrison. the first wife of
p the lawyer, who secured a divorce from
him in 1900, has taken the side Of her
former husband in his fight against his
second wife.
While she is not in a position to say
anything directly bearing upon the case,
the first Mrs. Harrison discredits many
of the charges brought against her
former husband. and positively denied
the claim made by wife No. ? that she
and her husband had been especially
friendly during his second marriage
Miss Jeanette Harrison, the daughter
of the first wife, also is disinclined TO
believe the statements made by Mrs.
Mary Harrison. Altogether, IL looks like
three-cornered fight, with MI Har-
rison's first family allied with him
against his second wife.
Mr.. Harrison is firm IN his statement
that his wife brought the entire affair
upon herself by her persistence in at
tempting 20 secure a further increase in
tie sum Of her slimOny.
Expected Her Return.
Until recently. he declares. he con
Hdently expected that she would re-
turn to him. Even after the agreement
Of separation, he says. he had hoped
that she would eventually see the folly
of her course IN remaining away, and
come to him again. He declares that
Mrs. Harrlson's attorney is abusive.
When the first attempt was made to
secure the increased aiimony." said Mr.
Harrison, 1.-THE lawyers Of my wife or
dered me TO appear before them with
out letting ne know the object Of the
consultation.
Having formed the original Peace
Agreement had no desire TO turn
away and fail to fulfill my part Of the
Contract" said Mr.. Harrison. But when
It came to a question Of forcing me to
pay an increased alimOny simply be-
cause Of my wife's wishes. and when I
had arranged our original Peace Agree
rent,' because OF her demands, drew
the line"
Mr.. Harrison spent some time with
his attorneys yesterday in the discus
sion OF a new petition for a suit 70 be
filed in the near future. While he
would not speak Of the contents Of this
new bill he intimated that there were
several entirely new features, tending
TO strengthen his case.
Says He Has "Art Studies"
In the possession of the husband are
photographs of Mrs. Harrison, taken in
the form Of art studies, which show
her clad in filrny draDery. Mr. Harrison
Il #HraN
taken without his knowledge by a local
amateur photographer He asserts, in
addition. that he possesses numerous
letters of a nature anectiOnate. to say
the least, which are alleged to have
passed between his wife and the phOtOg-
rapher, both previous and subsequent
10 his marriage.
Regarding the charge made against
. Mr. Harrison by his second wife in her
+ cross bill that he had been intimate
with his first wife during his second
marriage, both Mrs. Harrison No. 1 and
her former husband make vigorous de-
NAL.
There IS no feeling OF enmity between
Mr.. Harrison and myself" said the first
Mrs. Harrison yesterday. but any such
charge as that in the bill of Mrs. Mary
Harrison Is absurd
"Our children were in the habit Of
calling upon Mr.. Harrison at his apart
ments. and at one time Charlotte. the
eldest daughter. now married, asked
leave 20 1--we with her father
Mr.. Brandenburg, attorney for Mrs.
Harrison No. ?. refused to make any
answer TO the charge Of Mr.. Harrison.
that he had been brusque in demanding
an increased alimony-
Employed in G. 20.
Mrs. Mary Harrison now is employed
at the Government Printing Office as
a press feeder. On advice of counsel. !
she refused 10 discuss her case, content !
ing herself with the statement that the
bill fled explained her attitude per-
fectly.
He was cruel to me-" said she
AT Mrs. Harrison's house. her aged
mother knows only a little OF her
daughters marital plight. Mrs. Nor
rison yesterday declared that she had
been told practically nothing Of the
trouble, and that she scarcely knew her
daughters husband.
Mrs. Harrison is firm in the aIlega-
ton that her husband was cruel, lrrita-
BILE. and erratic, and Mr.. Harrison gives
not an inch in his claim that his wife
was unkind and mercenary.
Mr. HarrisOns only explanation for
his vv!fe's alleged outbursts of anger was
his occasional remark that she re-
sernbled her mother. Mr.. Harrison IN
sists that she did. and does, resemble
her mother. and inquiries why he didn't
have a right to say so If she possessed !
the resemblance. Besides. he argues, #
was not showing proper hlial respect TO
attempt 20 assault him because he com
pared her to his mother-in-law. His
~