The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-07-12
THE LAWRENCE DIVORCE CASE.
Ts B1gelOw Lawrence's Statement and De-
fence, prepared by his Counsel. .

ne puDllc1ty which has recently oecu given u
the difficulties between Mr.. T. Bigelow Lawrence
and his wife, and the unsparng abuse that has been
lavished upon him by the advocates and friends OF
Mrs. Lawrence, seem to demand impera'ively that
some statement should be made of the motives
which prompted, and the causes which rendered,
his course necessary. Whatever may be argued by
those unfriendly him, from his silence to the pre-
sent hour, il is nevertheless true, that he has thus
far refrained from making any public explanation,
from motives of decacy, and from consciousness
that his justification could not be established with
out divulging facts and correspondence which no
thing but extreme necessity should call forth. His
vindcation Lies, in great measure, in series of
etters writ ten by Mrs. Lawrence, and various men,
bers of her family and had i. been for the
justi6aLle manner in which he has been assailed,
they would never have been known But he is
now summoned, by call that must be needed, to
defend his honor and his name. The press and the
public alike demand that he should explain his mo-
tives and justify his conduct and nothing now re-
mains but that the truth should be stated distinctly
and decidedly, whatever may be the consequences,
or on whomsoever the weight of public opprobrium
may fall
That Mr.. Lawrence offered no opposition at the
late trial at Louisville need not create surprise
Without dwelling upon the legal character of the
libel for divorce filed in the case, we would state
that appears singular to practitioners II our courts
that the residence of neither party should be therein
set forth, and that there is internal evidence in
the bill that the court, before whom il was brought,
had any jurisdiction in the matter. There are
other omissions which here seem equally strange,
and which would either prove fatal 10 the case, or
require such series of amendments as would not
be highly creditable to the lawyer who framed ii.
The elegance of the phraseology, and the logical
precision of the petition, we will pass over, as the
public can form some idea of these by perusing the
Arguments of Messrs. Guthrie and Preston, in the
was framed.
But, waving all other defects or omissions, the
great fact that there has been sufficient service
on The respondent, must alone invadate all pro-
ceedings in the case. AT no time during the pro-
gress OF the cause, has Mr.. Lawrence received
any notice to appear; nor had he the fantest nti-
place when the application for divorce was to be-
heard The copy of the libel, which was alone
served on him, was without date, Except the
9 erk's certificate, which was appended thereto;)
II was made Teturnable to no term OF the court;
and, whatever time may have been assigned for
hearing the case, no order of notice founded
thereon was served upon him, and he therefore
had no legal summons 10 answer and defend. In
fact he had no right voluntarily to make himself
party to proceeding without decree of the
court; and the only legal inference that could be
drawn from the facts, as they appeared to Mr.
Lawrence pfior to the trial, was, that the libel
had been dismissed on account of informally, and
that no new one had been filed. This omission in
giving proper notice to the respondent, is not only
sufficient reason for Mr. Lawrence's non appear
ence, but il invaldates the whole proceedings
from the outset il renders the Judgment, founded
on The verdict of the jury, null in Massachusetts,,
and inoperaiwe everywhere, and il is one Of those
defects that cannot be regarded with very great
satisfacticn by those who are responsible for il.
Another objection that might be had under the
act of March D, 1850, respecting Mr. Lawrence, is,
that the Act was wholly inapplicable TO his case,
the advertisement having been published nine
days before the law was passed No lawyer need
De told that retroactive statutes contrary to the
jurisprudence of the land; and that, under the
ruling OF the Supreme Court Of the United States
Retrospective laws, affecting vested rights are as
imperative rs CT post tacto laws, when applied to
ceedlngs would be had under an act powerless as
affecting the advertisement of Mr.. Lawrence, and
thst the judges Of Kentucky would refuse to pur.
sue course contrary to every sound principle of
law, and manifestly at variance with the spirit and
letter of com ttutonal liberty.
These reasons, in the opinion OF counsel, were
-sufilcent to deter Mr.. Lawrence from appearing,
either in person or by attorney, at Louisville, and,
in compliance with their advice, he offered nc or-
position to the libel
AS il is difficult to say definitely what testimony
was given at the trial, will hrst notice the ac-
count contained in one Of the leading journals OF
Louisville, not only from the fact that II has been
more extensively copied than any other, but also
because the character Of the paper forbids the idea
OF any intentional error.
Mrs. Lawreace did leave Boston for Louisville
in company with her father, but Mr. ward had
some time previous offered to attend his daughter
thiiher in her husband should be unable 10 do
90. Mr.. Ward, Ia a lettt TO Mr.. Lawrence, under
date of July 10Th, said" IL your engagements are
suck prevent your leaving Boston, let me know
by telegraph, and also by mail, and will immedi-
aiely 60 Cor her" In consequence OF this, tele-
graphic communication was forwarded TO LOUIS
-vsile, stating that Mr.. Lawrence could not leave
Boston; and Immediately second letter was writ
ten TO him by Mr.. Ward, dated july 18th, IN which
ii was said" Ii Sale concludes TO visit her mo-
Their now, write me al once, and will soon be IN
Boetcu. When il is important she should be here,
il would give me pleasure 10 20 for her" On the
nth Of August, MIR. Ward was in Boston.
The promise made TO Mr.. Lawrence, nj the
time his wife left Boston, that she should certainly
return by the fret Of October, and ~ ives not ex-
pected that he was to accompany her back. The
reason why II was impossible for him 10 desc was,
that his father was to embark for England on the
.1Sth.of September, and he unable to leave Bos-
ton Before that day. lie was positively answered,
however, that his wife should be brought back, and
this was only repetition Of what had been preyi-
-ously stated In letter to Mr.. Ward. Ills language
was" II you cannot stay, will return with her
to Boston at any time you may desire. And IN
another letter he said" will very cheerfuy re-
turn with her 10 Boston, Mr.. Lawrence, in letter
TO MIR Ward, dated Sept. 9th, reminded him OF his
promise that MIRA Lawrence should return to Bos-
tca BY The hrs Of October Ins TO ,ss letter
sons why It's fulhlment was impossible. Besides
this, Mrs. Lawrence, when sbe departed from this
city, left behind her written promise that she
would remain in Louisville only one week; but
the time was voluntarily extended BY her husband
to longer period.
MI Tawrrnce's dissatisfaction at his wife's re-
manning In Louisville, known 10 the parents oil
Mrs. Lawrence more than five months before the
publication Of the advertisement. The same letter
OF Mr.. Lawrence, above alluded to, dated Sept y,
contains the following :" II you prefer Sallie to
which make, and one 1t is which Is prompted by
the strongest affection and true desire for her
welfare, have only 10 say 10 you, sir, that you
will effect separation between my wife aud my
self; for, " Sallc remains there, il would GER
tanly be forced upon me-" The reply Of Mr..
Ward, dated Sept. 10, said ;-"If you deem my
for ratio he Al
other opportunity was afforded Mr. Lawrence to
express his dissatisfaction, since all further cores
pcndence the subject was closed, at the request
of Mr.. Ward.
The following extract from letter Of Mrs. Law
renee to her husband, dated Nov. o, will show
that his di~sppioval Of her remaining IN Louisville