The Washington times., 1908-05-13
Was Dismissed From Posi-
ton, Says Lawyer, in
Divorce Answer.
INCOME REDUCED
BY HER CONDUCT
Alleges That Her Demands for
Greater Alimony Resulted in
Driving Clients Away.

That his wife was dismissed from the
Government Printing ONCE before her
marriage following a scandal Ia which
she was involved with married man,
md that she continued her wicked al
hance with him after her discharge, and
caused a divorce between the man and
ais wife" is the charge made by Arthur
w. Harrison. the patent attorney, an
sWering the erOss-bnl for divorce hled
by Mary Il. Harrison
Harrison brands many OF the state
ments and charges made by his wife
hs wholly false and without foundation,
and reiterates his allegation that she
often declared that she married him
only for the revenue she expected 20
gain BY st. She declared on many oc-
.casions. says Harrison, that she in
tended 20 leave him and return TO her
old position.
Her Own Suggestion.
He says that the gong arrangement by
which. Mrs Harrison said in her cross
bin, he contrived TO annoy the tenants
in the overhead apartment. and TO re-
taliate on them because they sometimes
disturbed him by walking on the floor.
was gotten up on her suggestion. This
contrivance was a box, open on one side,
ana padded. In it was placed a loud
gong. which Mrs. Harrison charged her
husband placed against the ceiling IN
the middle OF tire night and rang TO re-
taliate on the tenants IN the fat above.
That his vie confronted him on the
street with loud voice and boisterous
manner. calling for more alimOny. IS
another charge contained IN the hus-
bands answer. His average monthly in
come before the trouble began was $500
he said. but his wife mas driven away
clients, and reduced his earning capacity
one-third. He continues:
Defendant says further that his wife
did employ attorneys on two different
occasions, as she alleges, and on other
occasions also; but she employed them
10 try TO force this defendant to pay
more than S35 alimony a month, and not
for the purpose of trying to collect from
him that amount.
Reduced His Income.
''The average monthly income Of de-
PENDANT before trouble was brought
upon him by complainant Ise-Sin was
less than 500 per month. is1as % that
time. and by reason OF her I'll treat
ment OF him. ard her annoyance OF
him. and her calling upon him in the
street and near his office in loud voice
and DOisJeTOus manner. Tor payment OF
more alimony, have rendered defendant
professionally unfit in part for his bust
ness. and driven away clients and bust
ness, and actually reduced the earning
capacity and income derived by the de-
fendant at least one-third.
Defendant says that before parties
hereto were married. complainant Cdrs
Harrison) worked in the Government
Printing once. and often told defendant
while she was living with him she
wanted TO quit him and go back and
she had only married him for the reve-
nue. she expected to derive from him
and when agreement signed by parties
hereto was made, II was contemplated
that she would return TO the Govern,
hnent service as soon as she could, and
that when she did she would relieve
defendant (Harrisont Of paying her ali
mOny.
Defendant CHarris0n) says she wa.
employed In the Government PrfntlnE
Office Tor many years, but was dis
missed therefrOm on account OF scan.
'dal involving herself and a married
man and that some time after the scan
-dai causing her dismissal, she was able
10 secure her reinstatement.
Defendant says that complainant
continued her wicked alliance with said
married man, knowing him 70 be mar
RED, until she separated him ana his
wife, and caused a divorce between
them"