New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-10-09
Duke of DuraZZO Ayers
She Told Him mot to
Bother About IT,
COLLUSIVE DIVORCE
PROPOSED, HE SWEARS
Spurns Offer of $25 a Week
Asserts Age Discrepancy
Made Union Horrible"

An allegation ;ha, Mrs. John II.
IIanan knew before Duke Arturo dc
Majo Dura7zo was married to Miss
Elizabeth Frances Hansn that he had
been thief, and that she advised
him not to bother about it, is
contained in the answer filed by him
at White Plains yesterday afternoon
to the suit for annulment based on the
charge that the duke kept this fact
from his intended bride.
The marriage, the answer says, was
encouraged by the wife Of the sho"
manufacturer. sister-inlaw of the
duchess She was. the legal paper
reads. greatly IN favor Of said mar
riage and largely instrumental in
bringing it about She assured him.
the document adds. that on repaying
said person the said sum no person
could criticisc him severely
On the dukes return to this coun-
try this summer. nc says in his afh
davit, he was afectionstcly welcomed
and delightfully."- entertained by Mr..
and Mrs. John H. IIanan in their home
at Narrsgansett Pier, ana from there
was invited to the Hotel Belmont,
where the llanans were temporarily
making their home while in New York.
and took rooms in the hotel at their
expense. At the hotel. he swcars, he
saw the duchess several times, and
they discussed their incompatibility,
but never the French crime.
Mr.. fIanan about this time. the an
swer asserts. proposed TO the duke
that the latter agree 10 a collusivc
suit for divorce, and this he did until
ne had been properly advised" when
he Withdrew from the agreement.
Later. the duke asserts, the Ijlchess's
lawyer threatened TO shadow tho duke
in the hope of getting evidence for
divorce action. He was, he says, Of
fered weekly allowance if he would
agree not 10 contest the suit now pend
ing. but he would not consent.
1t is cortcnded by the duke that he
aid not know until his return 10 France
az bridegroom that any legal action
had been taken on his larceny from
the Paris hotelkeepe rwho had en-
ployed him. and that. when he learned
Of il after his arrest in Monaco. he
was advised by an attorney 10 take an
appeal 10 clear his name, but that he
was forbidden 10 do so by Mr.. lianan.
The answer is introduced by mo-
that United States courts nave no
jurisdiction. Eliot Norton, Of Rec
tor St. the dukes attorney. points out
in the answer that. by her marriage
to a subject Of Italy, Miss Hanan is
amenable to the laws of Italy, "where
she enjoys ire rights. privileges and
perqusites &C duchess" Further
more. the duke asserts. Miss Hansn
was not citizen of New York when
she was married.
Both sides admit that the duke prior
To- the wedding made to no claim for a
share in her property. Lawyers said
yesterday that under the Italian law
he is entitled TO one-thlrG of her es
tate.
Should the marriage be annulled. the
duke pleads. that decision will not hold
in Italy. where he will still be regarded
as married, and where. should he again
be married. neither his wife nor his
children would be recognized.
THE great discrepancy in our years
and differences in our tastes and de-
sircs." the answer continues, made
tho marriage a horrible union 10 both
OF us. and after many discussions we
came to the conclusion that separa-
tion was inevitable
While admitting that he may not
have told Miss Hanan about the Paris
larceny. he denies that he deceived
her about his character He says the
plaintiff is "of mature age and not an
unreasonable girl. and she entered
into this marriage with her eyes wide
omen and after most careful consider
alton of the defendants character
Neither Mr. nor Mrs. John II. Hanan
could be seen last evening to comment
on the dukes answer. The duke, who
had been living in furnished room at
II East 4fth ST. for about a month.
moved at noon yesterday His only
statement of interest was that he had
been offered s25 week by the Hsnans.