The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-04-30
MRS. TENNEYWINS
IN DIVORCE CASE
Is Granted Decree Mcnsa G,
Thoro by Richmond Chan
Gerry Court.

u
Separation from bed and board was
granted To Mrs. Emma S. Tcnncy by
Judge Grinnan In tho Chanccry Court
yesterday. the suit of George o. Ten
ncy for absolute divorce being dis
missed. The court reserved for fur
Their consideration all questions rclal-
Ing to alimony and counsel fees
William l.! Royal, counsel for Mrs.
Tcnney. announced Immediately on the
order Of the court being entered, that
1t was a complete vindica ton OF the
character oil his client, and that he had
been authorized by Mrs. Tcnney to
prepare the papers and institute suit
against Mr.. rcnney for damages Iii the
sum. OF 100000 for malicious prose-
cution.
Alleges Conspiracy.
"It is now evident" said MIR. Royal,
that there has been conspiracy to
ruin the reputation of this woman.
that Tenncy might be rid OF her ana
he saved paying her living Under
the order of the court they are now
husband and Wife no longer. and pro
pose to see whether the courts will
hear suit brought by Mrs. rennty
against those who have maligned her.
] is somewhat new in Virginia prac-
tice. but they. are no longer one, and
l see no reason why the divorced wife
for the infamous statements mado
about her character"
Tho case was fully argued before
Judge Grinnan on March 20 and 81
and submitted on deposition. Judge
Grinnan takes occasion to rap both
sides for introducing much cxtranc-
Gus evidence. the court having before
indicated that the case was being
argued In the newspapers, and that
both sides were bringing charges for
popular effect. The order entered by
Judge Grinnan follows in full:
Order of Court.
In the Chancery Court of the city or
| Richmond. argued March eo-2I, 1911:
/ Emma s. Tcnney
vs.
| George Q. Tenney.
The plaintiff seeks in this case a
divorce from tho bed and board OF her
| husb2nd. lie has filed cross bill
charging her with adultery. haye
! already had occasion to comment upon
tho objectionable practice that / find
in this case Of stuffing tho pleadings
| with great quantity or Irrelevant
| matter. have read through tho
! bulky dispositions. ut n great con-
SUMPTION OF time. and am confident
| that At least onc-hnif of the evidence
could and should have been omitted
as having no probativc value what.
! ever. The cause has been fully and
fairly argued on each side.
1 The de,nurrers 10 the amended bills
| ci the plaintiff VIII be ovcrruled. Thi:
! need not be discussed
| Upon her bills and proofs the plain
| tiif has made out case of dcsertiun
1 on the part Of the defendant and there
is nothing in tho record that Will dis
ehtitic her to divorce from bed and
board, The defendant has not cstab-
1 iishcd the charges of adultery that
( lac makes against his wife There arc
maliy OF these charges. some of which
| We're dropped in the argument: but
none deserves moments considera-
uon except that charged to have
taken place ut the Tcnncy home in
! 1895. III Spartanburg. S. C.. with a
| man whose name is frequently men
TONED THIS charge rests entirely on
we evidence OF negro man servant
| whose statements are contradictcd AMI
are also improbable in some important
particulars, and which. II accepted as
wholly true. would not sustain Tho
charge II need hardly be stntel
mat The rumors Of the wife's iinproper
conduct many years ago at Decatur
Ala. cannot be received as evidence
sven though proven by many persons
Disputed Conversation
IA n
good ground for abandoning his wife
Much is said about the husbands
aduitcrous connections. but his con
dnct In this respect is not an issue
In the case. and could not DO con
sidered in any event. even if proven.
except as bearing on the motive of do
| serton. He asserts that not until Ills
aaushter Informed him in December,
sos. at Pasadena. Cal. OF the Spar
/ irtr mot
1inally TO abandon his wife, though his
life with her for several years prior
thereto had been unhappy
Ills daughter denies the converse
ton, and whether ii actually took
place or not cannot he certainly de-
terniined. But whether the conyer
satinn took placN or not. the state
inents said to have been made on that
occasion are In no way binding on
| INC VIE. The letters in evidence
from the husband, written prior To
December /. zoos, show that he de-
sired TO be separated from her, and
That his plan, which the wife do
ciined. was that She should bring n
suit for divorce against him.
Detectives Employed.
lie had been suspicious of his wife
FOR many years, for in 1902. ut Al
lanta. Ca, and in 1908 ut Pasadena
I 80 nc hau employed detectives to
| watch her movements; though thosa
men found naught against her. Tbe
rumors of her misconduct at Decatur
with this same man. whose name an
/ pears so often. are not receivable in
evidence, and did not come 10 his ears
until long after December l. 1905.
So there is nothing in the record
which can Justify the desertion in
law. pesertion is not sanctioned ex
cept upon ground for which the
deserving party could succcssfnIi,
maintain bill for divorce. TO cstah.
iish a rule different from this would
be in effect 10 allow a divorce upon. n
! ground not authorized by law
y decree may be prepared In nc