KinSource - Tale of the Week - Whose Wife Is She?

KinSource

Minnesota Tales

The St. Paul Daily Globe, December 31, 1891, page 2

WHOSE WIFE IS SHE?

A Singular Case From the West Side Goes to the Grand Jury.

Under a Unique Agreement a Wife Regards Herself Free.

Annie Paul and John Long were arrested on Delos street, West St. Paul, at an early hour yesterday morning upon warrants by Sergeant Charles Hanft. The woman is charged with bigamy and the man with adultery. It seems that the couple were living together under the supposition that they are married. The woman is in an interesting condition, and claims she was married a few months ago at Duluth to John Long. The warrants were sworn out by Edward Paul, of New Canada, who was married to Annie several years ago. Assistant County Attorney Pierce Butler appeared for the state when the arrested parties were taken before the municipal court yesterday morning. The woman claiming that she had been divorced from Edward Paul, Oct. 26, 1890, and was married to Long, the parties were sent to jail in default of $1,000 bail, until the matter could be inquired into. During the morning it came to the ears of the assistant county attorney that articles of separation had been signed by Paul and his wife which the latter believed were, in fact, a divorce. On motion of Mr. Butler the parties were taken into court at 2 p. m., and allowed to depart on their own recognizance until Jan. 20, by which time the grand jury will have had an opportunity to investigate the matter. The agreement of separation, signed by Annie Paul and Edward Paul, was procured by Capt. Walsh from John Long. It is dated Aug. 20, 1890, and was acknowledged before Walter Holcombe, a notary public, who is an attorney of St. Paul. The agreement is a lengthy and rather novel one, which has the appearance of being drawn up by a lawyer. The woman agreed by it to release all claims on her husband or to his real estate or personal property, and to refrain from calling him her husband, or alluding to him as such, or to ever apply to him for aid in any way. The husband relinquished all claims upon his wife, and bound himself not to refer to her in a slanderous way and not to call her his wife again. He also agreed not to in any way interfere with her in case she should desire to associate or consort with any other man, child or person. The concluding portion of the agreement is to the effect that they should thereafter be to each other as a new and unread book - uncut, unopened and untouched - and in so far as in law practicable, to operate as an absolute divorce. The agreement was acknowledged before Walter Holcombe as notary public, Aug. 29, 1890. The agreement is typewritten, folded and indorsed on the back, "Annie M. Paul vs. Edward Paul - Articles of separation. Copy divorce. Walter Holcombe [printed], attorney for Ed Paul, St. Paul, Minn."

Mrs. Paul says that when the agreement was handed her Ed Paul told her she was free to marry any one she pleased. Paul owns nine or ten acres of valuable land in New Canada. It is stated that he has begun an action for divorce from his wife through Walter Holcombe, his attorney. It is claimed that he wants to dispose of some of his property and found that he could not give a clear title without the signature of his wife.

There is a disparity in the ages of Ed Paul and Annie M. Paul. He is about fifty years old, while she is only about thirty. The complications in the case are such that the case may grow interesting in the event the grand jury takes the matter up. Mr. Holcombe is out of the city, and an opportunity has not been had to learn from him the understanding between the parties at the time the agreement was signed before him. The woman claims she is innocent of any willful violation of the law, and it will remain to be seen whether ignorance of the law will allow her to be leniently dealt with.