New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-09-18
FORGIVE; Do NOT FORGET
Two Women Ask Court to Re.
adjust Their Marital Relations.
BOTH REJ0INED HUSBANDS
New One Has Separation at
Pleasure, the Other Must
Begin New Suit.

Justice Gerard was called on yesterday
to render decisions in the cases of two
women who changed their mind. One
gained her point: the other did too. but
only negatively.
One petitioner asked the court to so
modify her decree of separation that she
could reioin her husband and still put the
decree into effect any time she should de-
eide TO again leave her husband. On her
prior motion to have il modified the de-
cree was revoked, and she refused TO go
back to her husband until the court so
arranged il that tho decree remained in
effect in the modified form. Justice Ger
ard granted her prayer.
In the other case "A wife who sued for
divorce. but had got only 10 the inter
locutory decree when she and her huS-
band became reconcilcd and the final de-
cree was never made. the wife has de-
cided that the husband did not keep his
promises. But she could not set her final
decree on the old action. and would have
To begin a new one If she wanted d.
yorcc She asked the court to vacate the
introductory decree already granted. and
Justice Gerard granted her plea
The parties 20 the separation suit were
MrS. Cecilia Mangin and John ]. Msnsin.
who is a police lieutenant. The wife OBJ.
tanned her separation. Later she moved
TO have the decree revoked She said she
did this because Of the entreatics Of her
husband that for the sake Of their two
children they should again live together.
Mrs. Mangin did not know that when
the decree was vacated II could not be
renewed. When she did learn that she
refused 70 I've with her husband until she
had the affair Strengthened out Then she
applied 10 have the separation restored
and have IL only modified.
Mrs ManGin said that she sacrificed
much 10 get the decree and did not want
10 be deprived OF possible protection.
Lieutenant Mangin opposed the motion Of
his wife. He said he did not unduly urge
his wife 10 renew their marital lifc. and
decree would make il possible for his wife
to leave him whenever she felt like IT,
The principals in the divorce suit were
Mrs. Sophie r. Rodgers. who sued her
husband. John c. Rodgers. jr.. member
Of the John G. Rodgers Company. con-
tractors. at No. 81 West l2jth street. Tho
father OF the young man, who is the head
OF the company. is a prominent contrac-
tor. who built a large part OF Riverside
Drive and part OF the Manhattan Bridge.
Mrs. Rodgers sued in juno, 1910. She
won her suit and the interlocutory de-
cree. Then, as in the other case, tho
husband importuned the wife 10 return
TO him. The wife consented, and they
lived for time at the summer home OF
Rodgers, IN Westminster County, and
later at No. 40 West 18th street They
lived toy ,ther until January last, when
Rodgers left his wife. and. according to
her. misconducted himself
For this have relinquished Us a
month alimony." fad Mrs Rodgers. II
She did not say H. she thought II, ana
tried 20 get the final decree In her suit
but found sho would have to begin over
because she had condoned the offences
charged I'm the first action. Whercupon
Mrs. Rodgers had the introductory de-
cree vacated
The testimony before the referee In The
diyorc, suit showed that Rodgers MADE
his headquarters at the Hotel Albany,
where he was known as MrCabe. The
evidence against him was obtained by
rIaIoIJ 4 Alderman. who Is married 10
sister Of Mrs. Rodgers.