The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1920-07-19
NO CONTEST over
COX DIVORCE
Wife Asks for 1t and Gov.
ernor Made No Objec-
/ ton to Court
GROSS NEGLECT
OF DUTY CHARGED

Until 1922 - Later Marries Attor-
ney-Children Are Scattered Since
Divorce.
CLEVELAND, July 19.-When Gov.
James NJ. Cox, the Democratic candi-
date for the presidency, supervised the
publications of his biography in "Who'
Who in America he overlooked Ger
tain facts essential to know about. The
personal sketches which appear in that
common work of reference are always
given a final K by the subjects them
selves. The records thus are presumed
to be authenticated and made more val
liable.
But you look in vain in "Who'.
Who" for any token that the Ohio
governor was ever married more than
once. The notice of the marriage in
1917 is included in the sketch The
fact of the marriage in 1898 is not
stated
Yet that is the marriage that people
are asking questions about these days
the marriage that ended in the divorce
of 1911 upon charges brought by Mrs
Cox and not defended by the governor
Three of the four children of that mar
riage survive, the divorced wife Is
married a second time and her husband
now is. the lawyer who had much to dc
with securing her liberty from the hus
band from whom she asked the courts
to grant her divorce, alimony and re-
| lief.
The first Mrs Cox formerly lived in
| Cincinnati, but some II years after her
marriage she came to this city and es
| tabished a residence. Once legally in
| position to bring her suit she institu
| ted proceedings through the firm OF
| Patterson. Lee & Grew. The second
member of the firm, Richard f. Lee
was well known here as the attorney
| for the Cleveland Automobile club, and
| he was actively interested in the di
] vorce episode. although the senior part
ner's name appears upon the records
/ The former Mrs. Cox is the present
! Mrs. lee The firms, has changed in
membership and in name, and Mr.. Lee
| has offices in New York city and re
| sides at Pelham Manor.
The petition of Mary L. Cox was filed
on May 10, 1911; the writ was served
| the same day on James Cox; the di
yorce was granted to the plaintiff on
| June %. The court decreed that the
I custody of the children should be
awarded to each party equally, stipu.
| lated what arrangements should bf
made for alimony and support of the
children, and assessed the costs of the
suit on the defendant, that is, upon the
| governor.
The petition of Mrs Cox, with the
/ legal verbiage shorn away from the
record, runs thus: That she has always
conducted herself as a duhfsd wifa
| that of the four children born of the
marriage three were alive, and that in
| that year, 1911, the oldest, Helen, was
/ Is years of age, the older son, James
| z. and the younger, John, 80.
Further, Mrs. Cox alleged that tho
governor had been guilty of gross ne
| glect of duty toward her, that for more
than a year preceding the month OF
April, 1902 he had been in the habit
| of scarcely speaking to her, that at in.
! tervals he would not speak to her for
months at a time, that he ignored and
| Inundated her at home and in the pres.
ence of friends and acquaintance.
She alleged also that in the fore par
of the month of April 1909, he sug
gested and sent her on a visit to m
acquaintance in another state; that
! after she had reached her destination
he moved their children and household
goods to another house and then in,
formed her that she could not re-enteI
her home or have the children; that he
refused for months thereafter to let
her have any of the children; that dur
ing the summer of 1909 he failed and
refused to pay any money or provide
any means of support, although he was
abundantly able to do so.
Moreover, Mrs. Cox affirms in this
petition that through part of this per
iod she was sick and wholly dependant
on the support and charity of her par
ents, and that he well knew that t.
be the case.
Continuing. the record states thai
during all this time the governor hat
refused to permit her in his home, anC
that for more than two years they hat
lived apart and separate.
| These according to the records depos
| tied in the office of the clerk of Guy
ahoga county in this city, are the spe
cifieations in support of the genera
charge of gross neglect brought by
Mrs. Cox against the governor.
Il IAIr Cox made no answer and flee
no demurrer. Thereupon the court
found him guilty of gross neglect and