The New York herald., 1844-10-20

they Tor specific on the score
VI nupa contract and neither OF these have h.y
shown. II SAID that the obligation o the husbandt 10
provide for the wife, is sufficient consideration i,r
making settlement, but the law gives the property
10 the husband because he is bound and YET here
the reason for giving TO him IS sought 70 Dc per
however This Court viii not ii,teI.re to enforce
detective voluntary, post nuptia settlement ssHist
the settler himself even IN isvor OF ~s, - no
thority (See A,herley Marriage seltien. nt Levin
Trusts, storys Equity third edition oi ii5 Snd .ne
case Of Dillon Coppn, My era and Craig oH Ihefe
are some or dcta TO the contrary III the deeons
in this State but the point has never directly COME up
for adjudicaiion with In this there was neither
ante nuptla agreement any consideration oi me
settlement bur il was purely voluntary ana y Is Az
vain TO say grantor intended TO make Boon oeeu
No equity can he build upon his intentions lie may
have and has had good reasons for changing those ~
,entions and the deed - nuiiy, mere wss. P'p. u
unless YOU can couple valuable consideration wh ms
intent Chancery viii not pefo nance bot leave
that voluntary with tbs husband ~hch hnds wss SO or
ginally void deed may be evidence .. me
the interest Of the party make IT, but IN addition ou
have a valuable consideration TO 90 upon ~ lhe
statute frauds marriage contract or article must DC
reduced TO yrtng signed by the porty 10 be bound and
express the Consideration on which " Is mace
has bees objected that complainant should not have
set up statute; where the defendants attempt 10
make contract oil this Importance py paio eSaehce
and from loose scraps OF writing ,s very
the law for and does not the morale Of us cir
cumsapces call out and justify ne pieaf me chsHeo
fraud has been brought against MIR Crnger on he
that when he prepared the post nuptai s.'ten.h ne
was acting his wfss counsel and ought 10 nave hsde
valid deed. this so3 II Is tiue Oh one or TWO
her family bat this Tor specific purposes ana Mr. Vi
ham their regular and CONFIDENTIAL couhsei IL we
time and the deed actually submitted 10 ha ior ms
opinion within week or ten days alter wss executed
He pronounced to be valid and suihcient ins umebt
still Mr. Cruger, to remove all oouot instantly .niea
xecutc a one and three times Afterwards mhde a
similar cffr in writing. But according TO dthhdaAts
in their answer at oho 10 o the pie,1ho
ed agreement, tins settlement was 10 nave
been in conformity with the Revis Statutes, ana as
counsel should advise" Can it be supposed that Mr
CTuger be that counsel that he party 10 the
decide
himself counsel on the occasion, but ac'ed merely a
the husband and the executor, leaving to his
wiies trustees 10 take legal advice from others
they subseque y in fact did n the duly
ment that Mr. Cruger settle both the incpa and
income OF his wies property on heif An ouehP' WIS
made TO prove It by paro through & ssn' ti oI'
ly knew nothing upon the subject ana sech
also the with the attempts to Prove through
MIR and Mrs Monroe They had never heard oi such an
although the very persons to have known oil
il, had existed There is therefore not particle
paro proof Of such agreement before the mar
risge Then what written evidence has been produced
showing in The only scraps they have been able to mud
Mr. Crugers letter from Char estoD IN $780, ana the
memorandum in pencil at London IN s29-aha ~hat 90
these tot Ia the former he says NOR do know,
sessed Of or how situated; and should be most Teiuc
tant go my present Independence with no OIL eI *
pecation ,nan 20 exchange 1t Tor dependence Oh hai
property be it much litlle which though might wish
il to be placed hey ond the reach OF msioiun could no.
brook to be bel the pale Of my cenro since should
deem my self competent 10 it's charge, II esteemed by
others worthy to be with person. ana your
happiness" And in the aiier me Properly 10 DC con
10 Trustees The income for the use oi the
parties and Of the survivor The principal for their ch
dren the eldest TO bear the name o Douglas In de-
fault OF children the principal to DC osposa oi py me- e 10
Now, do either Of these propositions ook Ike Mr. Gu
gers giving up the control OF the income to his vile =
The principal ne has aiwa been willing to settle upon
and her heirs but he never YET has consented To oe
the discussing steward o the income subject 10 her
absolute disposal Nor has any Chancellor IN secui
ing the fortunes of married dreamt OF put
ting husband in such Predicament ana tina. man
would a ne be unwortny ., ne ho ,hou,S con
he placed In the case before US, Mr tftgei
has steadily and uniformly, acting on correct principles
and manly stirit OF independence reused 10 put mn
self in deg TsdBg condition. snd herein consists bis
whole offence. and the true canseo o all this difhcniy
Falling make out this pretended agreement by either
patol written proof the opposite side next resort TO in
plicofion and say that TO inter that Mr. Crusr
must AVE made such promise because oil Miss Douglas
fixed principle resolution have her property set
tied upon her In other words the direct proof that he
would not agree and yet we must presume hat ~ oia
agree-that although point OF honor and justice to
himself hs would be bound manner before his mar
age yet there must have been secret understanding
between them actually bnoing HIM And whence
do they derive this secret honorary obligation From
tho fact spoken OF in Mrs Monroes testimony, in
which she says her sister would marry no man who
would not settle her property herr Bu this witness
also teses tina, another OF Mrs Cruget's fixed primer
pes was the income to her husband and the principal
to her heirs and the whole case shows that she is way
ward and iu OF nconsis encies Thus the other prnc
pie simultaneously incu'cated by her mother that she
should leave husband for cause she
has hesa,ed to throw of at pleasure IN this way
rejecting the weghtier matters of the law, and adhe
ring only 10 those which concern property. And OF
the other hano had not MIR Cruger also fixed principles
| And did he not take pains shortly after his mar
ri0ge 10 explain to his vile his letter from Edinburgh
that one oi those prin cipes 10 live
dependence And did he not then say to her that she
might revoke tho order for the ncomae she had given
him, hich he had l.f in her hands, and he would
his profrssion' And has he ever departed from
tina principle! Is not his coniuct throughout readily
explained by his adherence 10 il, withsut imp ting t.
him the and inconsistent mo- ives the other sie have
been compelled to abricae for the purpose' We have
seen that Mrs Cruger reject one OF the principles
derived from her mother and according to Mrs Monroe
she also departed from the othersee exhibit 2o3)-0nd
although she says she cannot consent 70 live with her
husband he hold legal right TO part Of ,he income
of he estate yet in point OF fact she Id live with him or
nearly months while he held deed Tor one hih Of
the income, and only left him when, and because
his share increased 10 halt SO again in the very
letter written by her to her hush nd on the 2ad Oc
tober Is4l she VS. vii bind myself TO every body
bnt you 10 share with you, my entire income "-and yei
this letter s proiessedly written 70 show him the firm
state OF her mind ~ TO her pn ipes and her resou
tan hecom;ng 6rmer eyery honr How then can we de
duce FRI rincipes the presumption that Mr Cru
ger did make the engagement alleged TO have taken place
before the marriage? Or will the court catch at loose
lecture from such uncertain circumstances on which
WELD its highest power, that Of fcreeing specific pei
formance This last letter from Mrs Cruger wss Uri
ten about seventeen days before the deed securing Mi
Cruger bali the income execnted, and shows two
hng that SO lar IRON % osg %nu. .n n,s o.
ever was Queen Eliz,beth herself for she speaks t
| her hu bands obeyiDg her principles = and Sc.
condly that whatever mportuni'y or persuasion
he might have previously used, had all gone for
thing or instead Of making her yield. coercing her
that her resolutions not TO be convinced or
suaded were becoming " frmer every day" While we
say that MIR Crugers fixed principle not 10 live in state
Of dependence IL RATIONAL honorable, and such
the approval Of every right thinking person the
pose counsel do not pretend TO defend his wi els deter
mnaion her property but they tell ~ that 10 az
idosyncracy which II s her husbands duty TO submit
from which we are infer that he did make the preeno
ed ante nuptial agreement and which your Honor
to decree specific performance This new ground for
equitable interference dys diosy and 70
thy this whim Of hers the husband must he reduced TO
state of dependence the order Of society reversed
and the irjunctions throughout the Scriptures ~
naught-.Wivs be in subjaction TO your husbandsa
INTO tho Lord for the husband 10 the head of The
wife as Christ is head OF the Church" Not
ony then IL there no oral testimony, written evi.
den Of an ante nuptiaI contract but there is not
ground for presuming imply ing such thing and st
further there is documentary proof directly 10 the con
trary In Mr. Crugers letter from Geneva, written ~
May 1880 he says a most there are bu, two points ~