Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-03-25
VOIDED MARRIAGE
SUDDENLY ENDS
ALIMONY SUIT
Court, Convinced First Husband
of Plaintiff Still Lives,
Dismisses Case.

Probably never in the recent history
of the Chancery Court has a decision
beer the cause OF such utter dismay
and chaos as that rendered by Vice
| Chancellor Howell In the Gilman all
mony case, the decree In which was
signed at a late hour yesterday after
noon. BY it. the court declares the
marriage ceremony between Mrs. Eliza
beth Gilman to Frederick Gilman, an
Arlington butcher, was from Its 1ncep-
| ton illegal. the already being
the lawfully welded wife of Jeremiah
Norton, who is now living in Bridge
port, Conn.
Mrs. Gilman admittedly has two
daughters by her marriage to Norton,
Inc two daughters by her marriage 10
Gilman. Norton, who also contracted
enother marriage with a woman named
| Rogers, has a number of children, who
| are living with him. With whom all
| these children are going to live, and
by whom they are going to be sup
ported, is a problem which at present
seems to afford no solution
The Gilman marriage took place In
1900, the husband at hat time conduct
ing a prosperous meat establishment at
4S6 Kearny avenue. Everything ran
along smoothly until the advent into
the Gilman home of two girls, whom
Mrs. Gilman introduced as nieces. One
day Gilman heard one Of the girls,
who's names were Mary Alice and
Kathleen, address his wife as Mamma"
This aroused his suspicious and he de-
manded an explanation from his spouse.
1t was then thai she told for the first
time that she had been married before,
and that the girls were her children.
She said they had been living with her
mother in Ireland.
From that time on. Mrs. Gilman de-
clares, Gilman subjected her TO q
course of cruel treatment, once thrust
ing her head In a tub Of picked beef
and holding her there until she was al
most suffocated.
She was forced to leave, and shortly
after she started a suit for allmony
that was heard by Vice-Chancellor
Howell. Addison Ely, for the husband
claimed hat the woman had left OF her
own accord, denied the charges OF
cruelty and claimed that the woman
had $6,133 on deposit II different banks
that she had knocked down" from the
daily deposits from the business that
Gilman had given her to deposit. lie
also claimed at that time that Norton.
her first husband, was still living.
In rebutting this last charge. Mrs.
Gilman produced three witnesses who
claimed to have seen Norton lying dead
in q New York morgue. Mrs. Gillman's
suit was dismissed because she LETT
Gilman of her own volition. She de-
clared she would return with her chill
dren. This she attempted, but Gilman
would not nave her.
Another suit for alimony was started,
and it was at the hearing on this APP
plcation in January that Gilman re-
peated his charge that Norton was liv-
ing and produced three men, n of
them Paul Cassidy, a brother-in-laW
of Mrs. Gilman by her first marriage.
who said they a talked with Norton
in Bridgeport.
The court admitted that the strong
evidence and apparent sincerity on
both sides perplexed him, and therefore
appointed Jesse r. Salmon, court
stenographer, special master to go to
Bridgeport and have the woman con-
fronted by the alleged Norton. This
was done, and Norton at first declared
without hesitation that "she was the
woman all right" When Mrs. Gill
man, however. with dramatic intent
ness stared him and warned him to be
careful, Norton began to show signs
of weakness and said he thought she
was.
The Identification seemed to have
satisfied the court, however, for the
opinion reads in part:
az am of the opinion that Mrs. Gill
man, so-called, was the wife of Jere-
miah Norton al the time of her pre-
tended marriage to Mr.. Gilman, and
that her marriage to him was abso-
lutely void. The complainant admitted
that she had been married to jeremiah
Norton. The admission is c~orroborated
by the fact that they had lived to-
gether as husband and wife both in
this country and Ireland and were
known as husband and wife. There
were two children born of the mar
riage and there is some evidence in the
marriage certificate, although it bears
a date not consistent with the fact OF
the marriage to Norton in 1882. The
facts seem to me to establish a mar
riage and it then became necessary
only to identify Norton at Bridgeport
as the man to whom she was married.
This l think was sufficiently done by
the testimony of Norton and his state
ment of what occurred at the TIM his
testimony was taken, she being pres
emit"