New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-05-21
DIVORCE FOR MRS. BREEN
Husband of Richard Croker'S
Daughter Makes No Defence.
SECOND TRIAL OF THE SUIT
Woman Testifies That She Heard
Groom Tell of $4,000 Offer
to Make No Contest.

The second trial Of the suit brought ny
Mrs. Ethel Croker Breen. daughter Of
Richard Croker, formerly boss or Tam
many Hall. against her husband. John j.
Breen. was called yesterday In the Su-
preme Court, and on the withdrawal Of
the defence and the stating Of the case
for the plaintiff the jury brought in a
verdict for Mrs. Brnen.
The defendant was in court. but his
counsel. former Judge Olcott, announced
that he could not go on with the trial be-
cause Of the absence Of his principal Wit
ness and asked an adjournment until Mon
day. Francis l.. Wellman objected 10 the
delay in behalf OF the plaintiff, saying
that he had engaged passage 10 Europe
for tomorrow The court decided that
the case would have to proceed, where
upon Mr. Olcott. after consultation with
his client. said that the defence would
withdraw. After the verdict was given
Judge Olcott announced that he would
move 20 have the default opened.
The couple never lived together on
the first trial OF the suit by Mrs. Breen
against her husband. formerly a groom
and later q riding master, whom she Sc
Cretly married in Jersey City in April.
1910, the jury could not agree. In that
case Miss Maude Diehl. a telegraph oper-
ator. of Toronto. Canada, testified that it
was true that she and Breen drank to-
Gether and that she visited him in his
room but denied the allegations made by
Mrs Breen. The denial Of Miss Diehl. a
pretty young woman. seemed to impress
Al least some Of the jurymen. and they
,.nf,,s o. IN
guilty of any misconduct. Miss Diehl has
married since then, and on this account
she declined to come down to New York
10 he present at the second trial
Mrs. Elizabeth J. King, OF Peterboro
Ont. where Breen has been living, fur
nishcd most Of the evidence Yesterday on
which the jury acted, and which involved
the defendant and n new correspondent, a
woman named Mrs Reese. Mrs King said
she heard Breen say he had no affection
for his wife and also that Mr.. Croker Of
fered him $1,000 not TO contest the divorce
and that he refused Il. The witness quoted
Breen as saying: When he gives me
5000 I'll sign a receipt with both hands.
The first witness. a private detective. told
the same story as on the first trial about
the incident that involved the name Of
Miss Diehl and that Of Breen. To this was
added the testimony Of Robert =. Lyle. a
policeman Of Toronto. who said he arrested
Miss Diehl and a male companion one night
last summer. and Miss Dlehl was fined for
disordrrly conduct.
As TO Mrs. Reese, who is an English
woman. Mrs. King said that she rented a
fat 10 her. One evening Breen called or
Mrs Reese. and they drank gin together
and invited Mrs King 10 toin them. Her
answer. she said. was that she did not
drink. and II she did It would not he
"Brecn's kind Mrs. Reese played tho
piano and Breen sang. Later tho witness
heard the two in the room occupied by the
correspondent
The conversation included the statement
by Breen that he had a string OF twenty
or thirty girls I'm Peterhoro.' Mrs. Reese
asked 70 be remembered when Breen got
all his money The next day Mrs. King
ordered Mrs. Reese out Of her house.
The jury remained out only a few min
utes.
Breen and Miss croker becam. acqusint-
ed at a riding academy. where Breen was
employed and Miss Croker was taking
lessons in horsemanship. They met often,
and the Young woman accepted the offer OF
marriage made p" the riding instructor
They carefully kept from Miss Cookers
family their intention 10 get married, and
went 10 Jersey City. where the ceremony
was performed by justice OF the peace
Mrs Breen left her husband al once. and
never lived with him
For several days after the wedding denial
vas made that they had been married and
soon the young wife sailed for Europe
Breen blamed his wfe's family for inter
fering, and last December he fled suit for
Nn}No against Richard Croker and his
sons Richard Croker. Jr and Howard
Croker. for the alleged alienation Of his
Uyfa's affections