The New York herald., 1851-10-30

SECULAR Law CASE IN PHILADELPHfA-TH
JEWISH CEREMONIAL Recently, in the Court Of
Common Pleas, a very interesting case was COM
mCncCd The parties are Peltier ). Rowland vs..
Harris Coleman and Isabella, his wife. This il
feigred issue to try whether the late John Rowland
was indebted 10 tho defendant In certain amounts
set ferth in the pleadings amounting in all to about
$1,000: The questions to try are two-lst, whe-
ther John Coleman, at the time Of his disease, was
indebted to bis brother; and 2d, whether certain
release, alleged to have been given by the widow of
John Rowland, was raudIlently obtaineil The
question will probably arise, whether claim made
by an executor Of an estate is a valid one ! The
circumstances out ofwhich this suit grew are novel;
and will no doubt be interesting 10 the community,
as very few persons are aware that q part OF the
Jewish ceremonial law, In relation TO the marriage
Of widow, 10 still In force in this country. All the
parties in this suit Jews and the facts are al
legged to be as follovs;-About the year 1881, John
Rowland, the deceased, came to this city from
Poland, in poverty. He found his brother, p. 5
Rowland, in fOurishing liquor buliness. He re-
ceiyCd assistance at the hand Of L. D. Rowland aud
shortly afterwards was put in.o business by him
through bis means. In $50 he died, leaving will
snd widow behind him, and MAXIM z his brother,
L. ;. Rowland, his executor. An inventory Of his
estate was made, which consisted chiefly Of his
stock ard trade, namely, lquors-be also having
been in the liquor business. The executor
filed bis several accounts, and struck q ba-
larce, which balance he claimed a. q creditor
ard tho widow seems. for time, to have acqui-
esced. short time afterwards, however, the widow
were the cortequence. In 1871, II seems, the widow
bad an engagement Of marriage with the defendant,
Harris Coleman; but under the Jewish dispensa-
ton, she could not marry without TIE approval OF
her deceased husbands brother. This ceremonial
appears to be strictly observed. ID is rule pre-
scribed In the Old Testament, and is considered
obligatory. 1t will be recollected by the reader
that, under the Jewish dispensation the widow had
a claim OF marriage upon her deceased husbands
eldest Brother, where her husband died without
issue; and In the event Of his refusal, she might
claim each Of his brothers, In succession Of senio-
rity; but Is was not oblig igstory upon any but the
edest to take her 10 wife. II he refused, the law
compelled him 10 submit to the degrading process
OF having his shoe taken from his foot by the
widow, who had the right TO spit in his face, with
the exclamation of-"here s a man who refuses 10
build UP bis brothers house" IL he still refused
to marry her, she was then free to marry another
This pert Of the ceremonial Law Is not now COM
Piled with bat the Jews still adhere TO the required
sanction Of the deceased husbands brother, before
the widow is permitted TO marry again. This cere-
mopy OF release is strictly observed. Previous 20
the communication Of her marriage with Mr.. Cole.
man, the widow applied to her deceased husbands
brother for such release as the Jewish ceremonial
law requires. This he refused TO give until she
would scquit him Of all claims she had against him.
and stay all legal pro seedlings then pending. This
the widow at first refused TO do; bat subsequently,
relented and agreed to give the necessary acquttaL
Alter such release BY her, the husbands brother
gave the ceremonial release, and the widow became
the wife Of Harris Coleman. One Of the questions
in the case will be-vhether the release obtaised
from the widow by the deceased husbands brother,
was fraudulent one