Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-05-14
DIVORCE FOR McKEES
French Court Grants Decree
for Both Parties.
REMARKS BY THE JUDGE
Lectures on the Shortcomings Of
Husband and Wife.
DAMAGES REFUSED FORMER
All the Financial Questions Pending
Referred to the Notarial
Chamber.
DAMAGES REFUSED FORMER
Snncial CahIepram IN Tho Star

Special Cahlegram to The Star.
PARIS. May 14.-The court has granted
A. Hart McKee's demand for a divorce
and also that of his wife. but has refused
his demand for damages against her and
her father. Col. Baxter, for defamation
of character
In rendering the decision the court said
that Mckee had shown himself brutal
and egotistic toward his wife. and his at
titude toward her had been aggravated
by his attempts to procure dshonorinS
evidence against her. Accordingly. the
court would grant her demand for d.
vorce. But Nine. Mckee had been wrong
in attempting to attack her husbands
honor by advancing unfounded charges
against him.
The court gives the guardianship of the
child to Mrs. Mckee. giving the father
the right to visit the child Sundays and
Thursdays from 10 till e. The child will
visit the father for, month annually.
Mckee is condemned to pay alimony In
the amount of l.nO francs month and
to pay the cost of his defamation suit
Reconciliation Was Impossible.
The court was of the opinion that
reconciliation between the Mckees was
impossible. so separation was the
wisest thing 1t found the husband guilty
of violence and of having committed
grave wrongs toward his wife. saying he
had yielded on the slightest provocation
to the impulses of his vicious nature. He
had aggravated these wrongs by bringing
charges against his wife which he could
not prove, as well by having read in
court his wife's love letters. which eie-
mentary decency'' should have prevented
him from making public.
The court found that the wife on her
40 ay,fc hi Of kod hor Shon
by making charges in connection with
the disappearance of her jewels and other
property-charges which were entirely
disproved.
The tribunal referred to the notarial
court all financial questions pending be-
tween Mr.. and Mrs. Mckee. The court
divided the costs between the plaintiff
and the defendant. The formal decision
reads as follows:
'.The court grants the divorce at the
request Of and in the interest of both
parties.
Married in 1905.
A. Hart Mckee and his wife. Cornela
Baxter Tevis Mckee. who were divorced
today in Paris, were married January
II, 1905. two days after Mckee was freed
by divorce secured by his first wife.
Elisa Sutton Mckee of Pittsburg Mckee
is the son of K. Zellers Mckee. the Pitts
DurS glass manufactures. ana Is HdtlNe
of Pittsburg and a former student al
Princeton.
Mrs Cornelia Tevis Mckee was the
widow of a well known Denver man when
she married Mckee. Her father. Col.
Baxter. took sides wit hher in her suit in
Paris. and was involved on account of dis
paraging statements about his son-in-law.
Mckee and Mrs. Tevfs. with her young
son. sailed to Europe together in October.
1904. while he was still married TO his
first wife. Her suit for divorce followed.
He married Mrs. Tevis in Philadelphia,
sailed again for Europe. Both sides soon
complained of their married life there.
The Allegations.
Mrs. Mckee said that her husband was
cruel to her and her son. and that he
made her give him sums of her own
money sold her jewels. starved her.
threatened her and otherwise ill-treated
her Mckee alleged that his wife was in
innate with their chauffeur and with GER
tain friends of theirs, and gambled heavily
at Monte Carlo.
Mrs Mckee, through her father. Col.
Baxter. brought suit for divorce in Paris.
Her advocate. Maitre Barboux, brought
twenty-six charges of cruelty. alleging
among other things that her husband
tried to suborn witnesses against her. Me
Kee, defended by Maitre Labori, put in
evidence letters written by his wife at the
time before they were married to each
other. These letters were written in Sc
cret code, and when translated contained
sentences that were unprintable. They
were brought forward as showing the
character of the plaintiff.
In resuming the case the public prose-
cutor recommended that the court grant
q double divorce.