The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-11-23
In Chancery.

Before the Vice Chanc elor
Nov. Sarah "a Wedding VS.. d. Weeding-Ths W as
motion to open decree of divorce obtained time
since the ground that irregular and effected by
collision. His Honor the Vice Chancellor delivered
learned and lengthy opinion. He said in substance that
the decree must be allowed to stand as no irregulary
had been shown in the proceedings warrant the OPEN
ing thereo and that if it were opened he ultimate
advantage the defendant thererom it would cost him
several hundred dollars in the shape counsel and so
ctors fees as he would be obliged to furnish the expenses
Of resisting his proceedings TO the complainant his
wile and even allowing that opened there in the
end ne deiendan would De no better of than he now s
as decree must ultimately pass against him. for he the
Vice Chancellor had doubt of the guilt as
clearly proved before the master by OF hsfeow pas
sengers from Ell gland that upon his arrival here he
mitted adultery in house Of ill fame in Wooster street
under so strong not to lie doubed that
il the decree opened and the fegned issue tried re-
fore jury his Honor should permit this testimony thus
regularly taken before the master be read as evidence
before such jury and he thought no jury could give
verdict in his favor Besides this the defendant admitted
in presence of two PERSONS who have to such ad
mission that he did commit adultery once and only once
Under the circumstances his Honor said that would be
useless from the defendant TO go before jury As for the
objection OF collision between the solicitors the proceed
hug the solicitor Of Mrs. Weesn e wss ab MI Daho
the defendant out of his Office in consequence of some
threats used by said Wedding to ntmidate him from
Quoting the proceedings between himself his wife, Mr.
Danohcr then told him that from his violence conduct
he would prosecute his ws suit with all possible rgor
This before the defendant sailed for England in the
fall Of IS4l The compliments solicitor soon thereafter
obtained from the defendants solicitor consent that the
fegned issue be abandoned and that it be referred to
compliments bill Wedding of before he left
for England and he should have taken stems to prepare
himself And instead ofdoing he leaves this country
without the knowledge Of his solicitor leaving with
him any instructions the subject. The defendant saws
he gave money and property to his solicitor prosecute
his business; but appears that large portion the pro-
perty redeivered to Wedding, and the only as
signed to his solicitor as security for procuring him bail
while imprisoned Great issued in this cause His
Honor therefore, could grounds for the objection of
colIusion, and the decree must therefore stand.
His Honor next came to the second branch of the mo-
he ndant
OF under the decree. The defendant IS liable on
the writ ofca a for the costs of the suit His honor said
that authorize the issuing Of execution under the de-
must be given in the decree to issue such ex
ecuton. But the decree itself has awarded to the de-
PENDANT writ ofexecuon for the of this suit He
thought the decree was defective that point that the
writ of is erroneous and cannot stand there
fore the defendant must be discharged from custody His
Honor thought the defendant had been hardly dealt by in
this case An application had been made for writ OF ne
Great against the defendant the ground OF al,mony. But
his friends looking into the subject decided that
was no decree at all Tor alimony That the plaintiffs So
lcor appeared to have abandoned the clam aimony
And his honor said he glad to avail himself of any
technc ates whereby he might discharge the defendant
from prison But it should be so arranged that the de-
PENDANT should not bring action for false imprisonment
He said conclusion that he should let the decree stand
dssoving the marriage
Decisions given in the following cases:-
IYiAiam H. Holly and otsrs John Glorer and others
The Court had referred this case, with instructions
the Master TO take the statement OF third party The
parties had gone before the Master with petitions and OBJ
Jections, which IL denied sufficiently explicit
Application was therefore, made further directions
the Tor the Court to its decision TO
ceivng the objections The Court said that as the Mas
tes did not that the objections ad
mtted was his opinion that the first objection was not
sufficiently definite of itself to admit of receiving test
mony upon IT, But as some Of the objections were suf.
cent, he would not strike the others iii testimony
was offered, when he would examine into IT, He decided
therefore, that when testimony is offered he will give
final decision the points respecting the su;cencv o
the objections The Court therefore, left the matter 70
take its own course The motion was denied ana each
party was to pay its costs. $50 ~
Esekiat Byam ct ais vs. John IT. Stevens ct als-n this
two motions had been made one that the cause he
moved into the Circuit Court of the United States az oh
the defendants aliens and had right to bring their
opponents into that Court. This application must no
granted. Another motion made, in which il was
charged that Lacour had violated the injunction granted
against him. and urged that Lacour should not be
permitted TO remove the cause till he had purged his con.
tempt. And the motion maue for an attachment
against him for contempt removing the before the