Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1840-07-16
Circuit Court.


JULY l5.-SOphia Vs,nen VS. WILLIAM Il Yer
nen.-This was a feigned issue from the Court OF
Chancery to try whether the defendant had ever
been guilty Of adultery with certain persons named
tnerein or with some unknown persons, and, if So
II the plaintiff in this suit had ever forgiven him
therefore. 1t appeared that the parties were mar
RED In the month of October, 1884, and that they
had one child previous to their separation in he
year 1888 About that time some proce edngs in
Chancery were instituted by the wife with view
TO separation but after some time and money had
oesn wasted 'n litigation, they came together again
ana went To reside Tor the summer in the country
they then returned to New York, and took board a,
the house of Miss Laura She rman, in Grand street
After they had resided some weeks with Miss S
they left Tor Suffolk street Here some FIRE sh diff
Guilty arose between them, and Mr. Vernen informed
his wife that unless she withdrew some aspersions
which he considered she had cast upon his charac-
yer In the course OF the proceedings in Chancery,
ne would not live with her, but she must go and
board with Mrs. Brush, in Willett street Mrs.
Vernen refused to withdraw these aspersions as she
deemed that her doing SO would be tantamount to
her charging her brother with the commission of
perjury. This dispute was heightened b the dis
covery that A1rs V. had certain unmen tionabie
complaint, for which her husband consulted DR..
Stone, whe attended the lady, but did not elicit from
either OF them how ii was communicated to her.
After she had gone TO board with Mrs. Brush, her
husband made an arrangement for married lady,
from New Bedford, and her daughter, b tn highly
respectable people, to board him, and to take his
furniture In part payment Of the same This ar.
rangement gave umbrage to Mrs. " and she listed
upon 1t that this necton got together for i'm
proper purposes, and fresh suit in Chancery was
Instituted for the purpose Of deciding who was to
have the custody of the child.
Ihat suit was decided in the favor Of the hus band
giving the wife permission to see it at all reasonable
honrs, and entirely exoneratin- Mrs. Meaden and
her daughter from .the slightest suspicion of any
thing wrong, Or to use the Chanceilor's word.,
that neither OF them have, by any act of indiscre
ion on their part given any cause for the cruel and
mi rious ISLANDERS which have been circulated to
their prejudice"
Mrs. Vornen, however, would come to see her
child at the residence of her husband, and
casion she insisted on staying there all night, al
though told that no room prepared for her, and
that there bed for her to sleep in, save that
occupied by her husband. This created a difficult
ty-and Vernen wrote a very angry letter to Mrs
Brush, accusing his wife of improper conduct, and
charging her lnfdehty as the origin of the COM
plaiAt which DIR. Stone had prescribed for, and
threatened to remove her from Mrs Brush's, if She
continued to annoy him further.
Fresh law proceedings were then threatened,
which threat was carried out by the friends Of Mrs
Vernen, who elected from DR. Kilbern that he had
seen Mrs. Vernen at house in Renwick street, in
the spring of 1882 and that in the house were two
ladies, and that when DR.. X entered the room some
cards the table, f play had been go Q on
The Doctor aud Vernen left the house together
when MIR. Vernen asked the former if he knew the
ladies' To which the Doctor epled, No onIy
profes sionally." To this Vernen replied that he
ha pro nised to take ak with them, bst should
not fulfil his promise. This was considered pre-
sumptive evidance Of the defendant having visited
the house in Renwick street for improper purposes
After or two days trial and very abe speech
from MIR. billiard and Mr. O'Conner the Jury
retired under the charge of the Court, and found
verdict for the wife under the third and fourth is
sues, and for the husband on the first and second.
The foreman said that the jury were satisfied that
not the slightest stain rested the reputation Of
Mrs. Meaden or her daughter
We cannot dismiss this case without compliment
ing the mate delicscy Of feeling which induced the
highly respectable lade OF the Moral Reform Soce.
given in evidence by Dr. Stone in the course of the
trial, and continually harped on by the Counsel on
either side. The suerings Of the fair auditors must
have been intolerabe, and only endurable for con-
science sake.