The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-07-27
In Chancory.


Before Vice Chancellor M'Coun.
Dsusis. Ct aiThs case, Noticed on yesterday was re-
sumed argument this day. The parties are highly
connected and respectable The lady Of General James
Hamilton south Carolina sister and not sister
N law the complainant Mrs Cruger, the wife, is
daughter of the late George Douglas lot the hrn OF Doug
and Shawl OF this city and nece to the late Sir VII
liam Douglas of Douglas Castle Scotland, whs bought
his title and estate having smassed vst wealth, original
to his demise he left his large and property to his
nephews and neices Of whom Mrs. Cruger was one The
income OF her estate amounts and at the
time of the marriage estimated at about SoOO0-its
present value about 900 Previous to the
marriage in 1888 appears Mr. Cruger accompanied his
wife to Europe and the marriage took place on their re-
The compliments profession. Chat Of lawyer)
not congenal to the taste or dignity OF Mrs T. An
antnupa agreement was entered into, Out not
ed binding the complainant to give up his profession
the marriage taking place This document was not sgn
ed until after the marriage took place the alleged cause
given the part oil the lady, whose age was tortyhve
that she wished to give this proof Of her confidence
her intended in order to show that she willing to
complainant in order prove her that he married
for love- and not for money! signed the document subse
ansnt to the marrsgt giving up his marital rights and
complainant alleges he made this settlement by his voun
tary act and in return the wife gave him over by deed
The entire income for ifeon the strength of which he
retired from his profession satisfy the lady The wife
subsequently, appeared revoked the gift and wished
the husband to live with her in state of dependence
and control over the estate gave cause for much
unhappy feeling Mutual friends and Intermediates
when at the instance Of Mrs. Cruuger's friends an
other deed perfected and executed making two
thirds of the incomes but refusing to live with the hus
band did not appear that there were grounds for d.
either side Complainant il appeared cancelled
this last deed and afterwards she signed another deed
making about fifth Of the income to his indepen
dent controls upon which they became reunited. After
remaining time in harmony the intermedders
again nterfered and another family quarrel took place
The parties had issue from the marriage when to re
concile the difficulties. new deed was executed making
half the income on the husband On his &C
ceptng this deed she again separated and refused to live
with the husband. The complainant alleges he has ne
consented TO the separation and that he has frequent
y rendered support the wife his professional
ngs declining touch dollar OF the income, If Deepen
ience is TO be the condition The main question is u
volved in this point the wife claiming the right the
property, and wanting to treat the husband Deepen
dant the husband claiming pir marionie right over
the property.
MIR. OConnor read through portion Of the vouminous
evidence for the defence when Mr. Anthem was heard il
argument for the complainant He contended that the
signing Of a post nuptal agreement was void in law
rst the ground of there being consideration; and
that the marital rights of the husband could not be
interrupted by any act subsequent to the performance
the marriage ceremony next that any post nuptia
ment invalid and could be brought under the statute
Of frauds He also commended that the property could
be held exempt in law from any of the husbands debts
The case will be resumed on Tuesday, when Mr. Anthem
will continue.