A MARRIAGE TANGLE.

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 February 1909, Page 1

A MARRIAGE TANGLE.

A pretty matrimonial tangle has lately occupied the attention of the New York Courts, John Cotton Smith, of New York, is the person chiefly concerned. In 1533 he married a Miss Lilian Brown, and in 1892 n lawyer gave him what purported to be a decree of divorce issued by a Philadelphia Court. Since then he has been married twice. He divorced his second wife, and his (bird wife is suing for separation. His first wife, acting on the assumption that the decree now alleged to be fraudulent was valid, married, and afterwards divorced her second husband. She was ab< til lo be married a third time, when she learned that the original decree, which deprived her of her husband, was fraudulent. It is now asserted thai of these four weddings all except the first were void, but legal opinions differ, and even the parties chiefly concerned are not of a single mind. The strangest part of all is that Mr Smith j and his first wife are now eager to be | reconciled. They do not know whether I they are still man and wife, or wheth- j er :. i, v i, .- -nage will he t esse".', j ami it remains for the Courts to j straighten out the (angle. .Mr Smith is a direct descendant of the famous John Coffoit, ofie of flic Mayflower pilgrims, who came to be recognised as the I'atriach of New England, be- I cause of his Puritan teachings. If. as alleged. Mr Smith's decree of divorce from his first wife can be sue- ; cessfully disputed as fraudulent, then the matrimonial affairs of two men and three women will have become greatly entangled, and many persons of lesser importance will become surprisingly Involved. Counsel for Mr Smith has' recently obtained an order directing Mrs Smith \'o. 3 to show why nu older granting her alimony and counsel fee should not be vacated on the ground that she was never Mr Smith's wife. Mr Smith contends that if his marriage with his last wife was void there is no ground lor a separation suit, and that the order directing him : to pay alimony was an error. There ! is a humorous aspect to the case; for; Mr Smith is now virtually declaring thai he owes a solemn (luty to his first—and only—wife, from whom be | was never legally divorced.