New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-11-30
LAW COURTS.
II society

+ =
/ Ge0rgs " Ride gray, and Sarah {. Bonnet
Action by Mrs r, as widow OF the late James
/ Rldeway, for dover, already referred To- The ar
gument in this case has been concluded, and the
decision reserved for adyisement The suit is
nomInay IN ejectment against Mr. Ogden, who
occupies house and lot No 22S feminist owned,
with large amount OF other property, by Mr..
Ridgway at the time OF his death also against
two OF the heirs at law Of Mr. Il, he having died
! without a will
George W Ridsway, one of the defendants IS
the child OF son OF MIR Ridsway by 8 first
marriage, he having been married three times
and Sarah c. Bennett, the child OF daushtero OF
I Mr. T. by his second wife. Mr.. daughter by
his first wife is living and has a number OF chill
dreu. Her husband, Mr. Colvill, after the death
of Nh Ridsway administered upon his estate,
but it has since changed to the hands OF re,
/ ceiver appointed by the Surrogate 1t was cen
tended, on behalf OF Mrs G., as daughter OF Mr.
r and Geo w Rjdgvay and Sarah c. Bennett.
his grandchildren, on behalf OF their parents, that
they are the sole heirs at law, and that Mrs
Ridsway, the plaintiff and her children, are en-
! titled to part of the estate, by reason of the
tact that Mr. IS second wife obtained divorce
/ from him ON the ground of in6dety, and that he
was prohibited from marrying again during the
| lifetime Of said second wife, so that his marriage
with the present Mrs. R., the plaintiff, null
and void
The second wife, who obtained the bill of di
YorCe, is still living.
In july. i7i-i 1t appears M Nus ~ nc oein5
then widower with two chidren--a son and a
daughter married Catherine D"o' oy "uon ne
had enc child, daughter that In lsl5 ne and the
said Catherine separated and never lived together
again Nv c understand that the separation was
occasioned by charge made against MIR H. IN re-
lation to some property he had oou8uV ot party
but which it appeared subsequently, had been
wron9tully obtained lie ooulG nor lueus"y 'oe
PARTY and was adiudged to suffer- but was IN
short time eXonerated, Mrs n ana not I'VE with
him again. lie bad previously mace handsome
settlement upon her IN trust for the maintenance
OF herself and child. The daughter subsequent
" married EbeueZer Bennett She died, leaving
Sarah c. Bennett, one of the defendants in this
suit
Mr.. Ridgway went to housekeeping having his
first two children with nm, and was Supposed we
understand, 10 have been "'dowef on at east
entirely irce rom iile former marfia5e' III Au5'
1921 he married Rev. James Coyel being the Min
isteri Eliza Ann Everett then young girl OF 10
or l6 years OF age, the plaintiff III this suit. Tue
next month, being Sept. 1921, his second wife,
Catherine Dob filed bill for divorce against HIM
on the ground Of mfdelity, contending that his
marriage with Miss E. was void, and came under
the law SO as to e gr 70 rbc es papted
coIul17'9 a. ,; of rI;ntin ,o Mr.
~ ~ -; ~ e ,,oo aynn
n uliuel loL Ma ond tba Con
;i .. ~ ~ 60 tIo t;, of tha deotb of
m ~ 49, "a -, soid bo,e sayeral
MI WI i ~ III 17f' "iiu 10 ''' Guy 9''-1
ch m[ ;.o1 ,o;n4, .oI;od ,oor fo,. nIontfr
o dne Ip+ q }hs yodity Of her marriage is
,Io fac+ ttat tbe dacree Of divorce did not con-
tain the clause proh0fng Mr II. rom marFSl n
a. tat Ie sta ta oo"sd'r5 inc
Proholton was repeuep oI tLle t,o
act OF 1871 anu nat tle ne" +b aoI ohor 'b?le if
did not take away the right of the second wife as
to the divorce, or any rights acquired under the
old law, repealed the penal clause as to the party
against whom divorce had been obtained and
that MIR. X. was free to marry a8aln-that mar,
riage IN this State, beng clVli contract parties
acknowledging themselves to be man an ana VII" VIE
are q 50 IN awta[ t Nr ana ana mrs mrs ~ fhe