Mr. William Hinsdale, the manager of the late A.T. Stewart's estate at Garden City, Long Island, has brought an action for absolute divorce against his wife. The co-respondent named in the complaint is the brother of the complainant, Mr. Elizur B. Hinsdale, counsel to the Long Island Railroad Company. Both gentlemen are wealthy and well known both in this City and Brooklyn. The criminal acts are alleged to have occurred, the times and circumstances being specified in the complaint, at the house of the plaintiff, in Garden City, where Mrs. William Hinsdale resides with her daughter, a young girl who is just emerging into womanhood.

The case came up before Judge Gilbert in Brooklyn Monday afternoon, on a motion for counsel fee and alimony. An hour was selected when the court was deserted, and every effort was made apparently to prevent the publication of the painful family scandal. Gen. B.F. Tracey appeared for Mrs. Hinsdale, and announced that the defense was a general denial and an allegation of conspiracy against the plaintiff. The latter, Mrs. Hinsdale's counsel said, had formed an alliance with a woman in Brooklyn with whom he was living in violation of his marriage vows, and the present object of plaintiff, counsel said, was to get rid of his lawful wife in order that he might enjoy the society of his paramour undisturbed. Mr. E. B. Hindsdale, the co-respondent, also spoke against the motion and denounced the action of his brother in the most vehement manner. Ex-Judge Reed appeared for the plaintiff. After hearing argument on both sides, Judge Gilbert granted the motion for counsel fee and alimony, but announced that he would fix the amount at a future time.

The former wife of Mr. E. B. Hinsdale is an inmate of the Bloomingdale Lunatic Asylum, and his marriage with her has been annulled on the ground that she was insane, although the husband was not aware of that fact, at the time the marriage was contracted. (1)

Rhode Island Divorces: 1884
The Reason why Some People Acquire A Residence in Newport

An evening paper prints the following: "Attention has heretofore been drawn to the fact that several ladies moving in fashionable society were here for the purpose of 'acquiring a residence' in order that under the easy-going divorce laws of Rhode Island they might obtain divorces from their husbands. The first of these applications has been filed, and the title of the suit is Fosdick against Fosdick. The plaintiff in the case is Mrs. Jennie P. Fosdick, the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Bainbridge Clark, of New York. During the season of 1883 Mr. and Mrs. Clark came here, and have remained in Newport ever since, although everybody knows that the sole object of their coming was in order that their daughter might procure a divorce. In her petition for a dissolution of the matrimonial bonds Mrs. Fosdick says that she married her husband, Mr. Charles B. Fosdick, in New York on the 11th of April, 1878, and that there have been two children born, both living, one named Clark Fosdick, aged 5 1/2 years, and the other Paulding Fosdick, aged 3 years and 11 months. She asks for the custody of the children and claims always to have had them in her charge. She avers that she has always demeaned herself as a faithful wife and performed all the marriage obligations. She charges that her husband has been guilty of extreme cruelty, and asks for a divorce and the custody of the children. The papers have been filed in the Supreme Court, and the case will undoubtedly be heard at the approaching term. The friends of Mrs. Fosdick say that she is entitled to a very great deal of sympathy, as the treatment she has received has been of the most outrageous character."

The fact remains that Rhode island laws which permit a divorce after a year's "residence" are made a convenience of. It is stated by well-informed persons that in some of these divorce cases there is an understanding between the parties that the applications shall be made here for the reason that both parties can remarry. In all there are believed to be five or six cases. Mrs. Fosdick, who is very popular in society, is residing with her parents at "Clover Patch" cottage on Narragansett-avenue. (2)

E. R. Thomas Divorced 1912

Supreme Court Justice Glegerich signed an order yesterday granting an interlocutory decree of divorce to Mrs. Linda Lee Thomas, who married Edward R. Thomas, former banker and sportsman, in 1901. Mrs. Thomas's divorce was granted in record time for New York County. Her summons and complaint were filed on March 19, 1912, and the motion submitting the case to a referee was granted in June. Phoenix Ingraham, a lawyer, of 165 Broadway, was appointed referee and had the case under consideration less than a month. On Monday his report recommending the granting of an absolute divorce was submitted to Justice Glegerich, and on Tuesday morning the Justice signed the papers.

The co-respondent in the divorce action was Theodora Gerard, the dancer, who created the "Vampire Dance." The specific charges against the dancer and Mr. Thomas referred to the season of 1910, in both London and Paris. Mrs. Thomas also made other charges against her husband, but the other women were not named.

Edward R. Thomas, a son of Gen. Samuel Thomas, was chiefly known before 1907 as a wealthy sportsman. He had a passion for fast driving and fast motoring and his racing stables were among the best in the United States. In the panic of 1907, being financially associated with Charles F. Morse and F. Augustus Heinze, he went more than $5,000,000 into debt. He was indicted on the charge of evading the insurance laws, and was forced from then on to limit his expenses to $50,000 a year in order to be able eventually to pay off his creditors.

Mrs. Thomas was a Miss Linda Lee and a noted beauty of Louisville, Ky. Her father is William P. Lee, Secretary and Treasurer of the Louisville Gas Company. (3)

New York's Divorce Scandal 1909
Disapproval of the Ease and Secrecy in the Cases of the Rich

Mrs. John Jacob Astor of New York has secured an interlocutory decree of divorce from her husband, Col. John Jacob Astor, for the one cause admissible in that State. But for the newspapers the public could not have known about it; yet the law contemplates publicity of the fact, if not always of the testimony in relation to the cause, when publication might be deemed to endanger the public morals. As in so many similar cases where persons of large wealth are involved, the greatest secrecy was permitted to surround this case. It came before Justice Mills of the Supreme Court, sitting somewhere up in Rockland County, on a referee's report whose papers were sealed. Neither of the parties to the cause was present. The defendant, Col. Astor, was cruising on his yacht in the West Indies. Mrs. Astor was at a watering place in Indiana. Few of the people in the courtroom knew or could know of what was going on. It was all over in a very few minutes. Justice in this case not moving with heavy and leaden feet, but swiftly and stealthily on velvet slippers.

One of the great restraints upon the sundering of the marriage tie is the publicity supposed to attend the performance and the causes leading up to it. Most couples who come to find their married life hard to endure will hesitate a long time before consenting to undergo a public trial or exposure of their troubles or transgressions. Increasingly frequent as divorce is becoming in America, few will venture to affirm it would not become much more frequent if divorces were obtainable in secret. Yet in secret, so far as the courts are concerned has it come to pass that divorce is obtainable in New York State among the wealthy where divorces seem to be especially numerous. (4)

The Astor Divorce Scandal 1909

It is well that suits for divorce, especially when they involve unpleasant scandals or malodorous testimony, should not be exploited at length in the newspapers. But that is no reason why the law should be a respecter of persons to the extent of allowing divorce proceedings in the case of two very wealthy and prominent people to be conducted with unprecedented secrecy. In fact, the manner in which this divorce was granted, without even mentioning the nature of the case or the names of the parties to it, verged upon the farcial. If those who are already dangerously discontented with the administration of justice find in this episode fresh proof of the truth of their allegations it will not be surprising. Nor is this all. Secret divorces are a menace in themselves to society. They offer opportunities for gross abuses in the severance of the bond of wedlock. The precedent set in the case in question must be regarded as unlucky from every point of view. (5)

Mrs. Francke Sues 1906
Cousin of Mrs. R.C. Vanderbilt Seeks a Divorce

Mrs. Caroline Kane Neilson Francke, a first cousin of Mrs. Reginald C. Vanderbilt, and prominent in society here and in Newport, served notice recently on her husband, Dr. Pedro F. Francke, through her attorneys, Philbin, Beekman & Menken, that she intended to apply to the Supreme Court for an order to compel Dr. Francke to pay her $400 a month alimony and $1,000 counsel fee, pending the trial of an action which she has brought for a divorce.

Dr. Francke, who graduated from Yale in 1887 and is a member of the Rockaway Hunt, the University and other clubs, was served with a summons while coming out of the University Club. Through his attorney, F.J. Winston, he replied that the publicity attending such an application as that made by his wife would be distasteful alone, even if no court application were made, so an agreement was reached yesterday by which Dr. Francke stipulated that he would pay to his wife's attorneys $1,000 counsel fees and $100 a month alimony to Mrs. Francke, pending the action brought by her for divorce. The divorce action will be tried before a referee.

The Franckes were married on Dec. 3, 1895, at Far Rockaway, and it was one of the most elaborate weddings of that year. Mrs. Francke, who was Miss Caroline Kane Neilson, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Neilson, and a granddaughter of the late William H. Neilson, is said to be a near relative of William Hude Neilson, social secretary for the John R. Drexels.

Her brother, W.H. Neilson, and E. Le Roy Stewart, who are well known in society, were among the ushers at the wedding. The Rev. Dr. W.H. Neilson, the bride's uncle, came from Shepardstown, West Va., to perform the ceremony.

The Franckes lived at 550 Park avenue. Last year, it is said, the couple separated, Mrs. Francke going to Washington, Conn., and her husband remaining at Pinehurst. Now she is residing in East Seventy-first Street and the doctor is living in Forty-fifth Street. None of the testimony which will be taken in the divorce suit, before a referee appointed by the court, will be made public. (6)

Batonyi Suit in New York 1907
Newport, R.I. Dec. 7

It is a matter of surprise here that Mrs. Aurel Batonyi, though a taxpayer in Middletown, R.I., has decided to bring action for divorce in New York.

Mrs. Batonyi has been the guest of her sister, Mrs. Peter Hewitt, in Tuxedo Park, since Thanksgiving Day. When Mrs. Batonyi wedded, her sister, Mrs. Hewitt, was evidently not in sympathy with the marriage. For some time thereafter report had it that the two sisters did not visit each other, although Mrs. Hewitt was a visitor in Newport last Summer.

Since Mr. and Mrs. Batonyi separated Mrs. Batonyi and Mrs. Hewitt have been devoted to each other, and society expects that, if there have already not been a reconciliation between Mrs. Batonyi and her father, which is denied in certain quarters and acknowledged to be a fact in others, it will be Mrs. Hewitt who will bring father and daughter together.

Elm Court, the handsome home of Frank Work, on Bellevue Avenue, which Mrs. Batonyi had occupied for a number of years prior to her marriage to Batonyi, will be occupied by the two sisters next season, according to current report. (7)

Mrs. R.A. Livingston Sues For Divorce 1902
Newport, R.I., Sept. 12

The docket of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, which meets next Monday, contains one society divorce case, that of Florence S. Livingston vs. Robert A. Livingston. Mr. Livingston is a lawyer in New York. A former suit, which was also brought by Mrs. Livingston, had been withdrawn, the understanding being that the parties had settled their difficulties. Mrs. Livingston continued her Newport residence, occupying a cottage on Champlin Street for the last three years. She now brings a new suit, charging cruelty, desertion, and failure to provide as the grounds for the legal separation she now desires. (8)

The Lorillard Divorce Case 1898
Son of Jacob Lorillard Secures Divorce In Philadelphia

A divorce was today granted Jacob Lorillard, Jr., son of Jacob Lorillard of New York and nephew of Pierre Lorillard, by the Common Pleas Court from his wife, Abbie M. Lorillard.

The application for a divorce was filed by counsel for Mr. Lorillard in December. The allegations aver that the plaintiff and his wife were uncongenial, and that the former suffered indignities and intolerable treatment from the latter. Mrs. Lorillard made no defense, and the decree of divorce was granted.

The couple were married seven years ago. Lorillard's parents objected to the marriage and the union lode to an estrangement, and when the young man's mother died a few years ago, she willed her other children about $1,000,000 each and nothing to Jacob. Jacob Lorillard, Sr., recently remarried in London and is expected in New York with his bride in a few days. Jacob Lorillard, Jr., was born at his father's residence, in Westchester County, about thirty years ago. When he married he moved away from New York. (9)

Mrs. Astor Obtains Divorce Quietly 1909
All Papers in Case Sealed

Mrs. John Jacob Astor obtained an interlocutory decree of divorce from her husband, Col. Astor, from Justice Mills, sitting in the Supreme Court at New City, Rockland County, N.Y., yesterday. All papers in the case were sealed, and the case was cautiously conducted through its final stage in the courtroom.

The little gathering of spectators in the courtroom did not know the nature of the proceedings, the name of Astor not being mentioned once while counsel were making the necessary motions. Henry W. Taft appeared for Mrs. Astor. Col. Astor was represented by Lewis Cass Ledyard.

After Justice Mills had taken his seat on the bench Mr. Taft quietly arose and said: "I have a motion with which you are familiar, and would like to have the judgment signed and an interlocutory decree granted."

Justice Mills replied: "I have read very carefully the report of the referee in this matter, and am of the opinion that the evidence presented justifies the findings of the referee. I shall, therefore, sign the judgment and grant an interlocutory decree if there are no objections."

Mr. Ledyard arose and said there were no objections. Justice Mills signed the papers, whereupon Mr. Taft made a second motion, asking that all papers in the case be sealed. The motion was granted, and counsel returned to this city at once.

No statement was forthcoming as to which of the parents would have custody of the two Astor children. It is understood, however, that counsel in the case made a preliminary arrangement as to this and also reference to the financial settlement. It is currently reported that Col. Astor made a settlement of $10,000,000 in lieu of alimony.

Mrs. Astor was a Miss Ava Willing of Philadelphia, and was married to Col. Astor in 1891. Col. Astor is now cruising in the West Indies on his steam yacht Nourmahal. (10)

Mrs. Van Alstyne Wins

After being out for an hour yesterday afternoon, a jury in the Supreme Court granted a divorce to Mrs. Isabelle L. Van Alstyne against Guy C. Van Alstyne, whom she accused of living with a woman named Newman, or Allison, in Rugby Road, Prospect Park South, Brooklyn. The trial has dragged along for eight days. It was testified yesterday that Van Alstyne had taught his little son to leave his mother's name out of his prayers.

After the verdict, Mrs. Van Alstyne started downstairs to the street with her lawyer. She was immediately surrounded by a throng of people who had been spectators at the trial. Some one in the crowd began to applaud, and this swelled into a roar of cheers. The jurors joined in the applause. The Decree gives Mrs. Van Alstyne the custody of her four-year-old boy and $50 a week alimony. (11)

Mrs. Ferris Gets A Divorce 1888

Some surprise was created among Brooklyn society people yesterday by the announcement that Mrs. Alice Chapin Ferris, a sister of Mayor Chapin, had secured an absolute divorce from her husband, Harvey Ferris. Judge Van Wyck granted the decree on June 23, after giving a private hearing of the case, and upon its conclusion sealing up the papers and the official report of the evidence given. Since that time efforts have been made to keep the matter quiet, but without success. Mrs. Ferris was represented by William J. Kelly of 115 Broadway, New York, a former law partner of Mayor Chapin.

Mr. and Mrs. Ferris were married eight years ago, and have one child. Mrs. Ferris was very popular in society as a girl, and assisted in organizing nearly every one of the amateur theatrical clubs in the city. She is tall and graceful, with dark hair and large brown eyes, and as an amateur actress she made a pleasant impression. It was her love for the stage that first caused trouble in the family. This was about three years ago, and for a time Mrs. Ferris retired. She was a leading lady in the Gilbert, amaranth and Bedford Dramatic Clubs, but her husband rarely took part in her favorite amusement.

The proceedings which terminated in the divorce were begun about six months ago, but when the hearing came up Mr. Ferris put in no appearance, and after listening to the evidence submitted by Mrs. Ferris a decree was granted by default. (12)