New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-01-27
LAW COURTS.
Court of Common FRIDAY, J'

| ceedDg the mere mercantile value of the account
books was claimed, being s25, and 1t was con.
tended that testimony could not be gone into for
damages beyond this, in the present suit. The
! Court 20 held. A Jurorwho had been empaneled,
and acted in the cause the previous day, not ap
pesripg an attachment was ordered to issue
/ against him, and the case laid over 10 this fore
noon.
! James Liadon vs. Maria Lindon.-suit for di.
vorce on the ground that defendant has a former
husband still living, which is denied. The COM
plant sets forth that the parties were married at
New York in July, 1912, and that they resided
together man and wife at the house of plaintiff
till tie 22d of May, ls45 when they ceased to
| live together-that they have one child, little
girl the issue of said marriage. Some time after
the marriage he ascertained that she had living
husband, and soon as be ascertained that fact,
he declined to have anything further to do with
her, and charges that she has a husband living by
the name Of John Craig, and the said Craig was
living at the time. Plaintiff claims the said mar
riage to be unlawful by the reason aforesaid, and
that the marriage existing between said plaintiff
and defendant be dissolved.
Mrs L. through her counsel, Messrs. J. Anthem
ard T. j. Glover deny the allegations, as set forth
in the complaint, or that she had husband living
at the time of her marriage to said plaintiff. She
says that the said John Craig absented himself
from the said Maria for FIVE years and upward be-
fore her marriage with the said James, which
was duly celebrated by Magistrate according to
the laws of this State, and that the said marriage
was contracted ia good faith, and with the full
belief that she had no husband living.
She farther says that the reason OF her and
plaintiff ceasing TO live together as man and wife
was the cruel treatment she received, compelling
her to separate from him, and on account OF which
she commenced an action In the Superior Court,
which action is still pending.
1t is also alleged that after she entered her SAID
suit Mr.. L. advertised information wanted OF John
Craig, who married Maria Pollock offering re-
ward, and that he Afterwards gave out that ne
had found said Craig, and introduced this suit IL
was said that her little git is with her, and that
plaintiff pays her but 81 week for the malnte-
nance of herself and child. She insists that her
said marriage was not unlawful
The parties were in Court they seem to be
active, respectable appearing people, he writing
! at the desk with his counsel busy taking notes,
and she Immediately opposite him at the other
side of the table. He is said to own considerable
real estate. The parties are natives of Ireland.
Margaret KnoT Ia young woman, stating herself
| TO be "a wears of age,l sworn am acquainted
with John Craig he lived in Ballagarry, County
! of Antrim, Ireland saw him two weeks before l
! left home, which was in 1870 he was at my
brothers. house had been In the habit OF seeing
| him thereabout for or 10 years, sometimes a
short period eapsing when did not see him
| his father was Charles Craig, John was servant
to my brother on his farm; he had sisters and
brothers in the vicinity; have often been at his
| fathers house; did not know all tne people III Tue
town; did not know the wife of John Craig; did
| not know Mrs. L, the defendant IN this suit L
! heard her state since | came here ut was at the
lawyers Office, where was taken to testify that
| she was married to John Craig Charles Craig
son, and she was sorry for it, left Ireland in l8i9,
Newly ears day, and after arriving here went to
| my consins in Brooklyn, where four or hive weeks
afterwards first saw Mr.. Lindon, the plaintiff
previous to seeing him had noticed an advertise
| ment in the Sun, asking information OF John
r. nollo xrha hQ hOuan
he asked me about John Craig, and he called again
soon afterwards and handed me subpoena, and
went TO the office of his lawyers and testified ut
was stated by Mr.. Smith to be reference before
! Mr. Cochran,) do not knoWFho told him that L
| ever knew John Craig MIR. L. never paid atten'
ton to me | never saw him but those two or
three times John Craig worked for my brother
| for two or three wears before | left sometimes
being away / understood he had enlisted at one
| time took the Queens money, and ran away, and
| that he always hid when recruiting parties were
! about for fear they would take him MIR. l.. never
gave me any money for information as TO Craig.
| An advertisement, cut from the paper, was IN
| toduced by Mr.. Smith, headed " Information
w anted," and says in substance, 1t John Craig
! who married Maria Pollock IN 1888 0leacher, In
Antrim. Ireland, describing place. whose father
! was in America and she lived with her friends,
| will come to this City, he shall receive reward
| of go; and any person will be literally reward
| ed who may furnish information, by applying to
Some further testimony was gwen Tor pi amtln.
Mr. Glover in opening the case for defense, said
at the time Mrs l.. was married to plalntlh, she
bore the name Of Craig. and had child with her
! called by that name. MIR. i. was perfectly aware
| OF her former marriage, and possessing, as you
may see to be something Of lawyer, he coun-
! selled and advised her that by the laws OF New
York she was at perfect liberty to enter into the
marrsge state. They were married In 1872, aud
after living together for some time, separated. In
4 kTr.o ofIo
on tue ground Of cruel treatment, and be could be
REQUIRED to maintain her. There were three
! children born of this marrisge-two OF them nave
been removed by death, aud little gITl, born
| few months after their separation, now about
wears Of age, still lives. From the day OF their
separation to the commencement OF the suit,
! plaintiff never laid eyes upon her. Alter pro-
ceediDgs had been commenced on her part for a
separation in order to free himself from the suit,
and from the necessity of supporting his vile
and child and, also, to free the real estate he
| owned, from her right OF DOVER he commenced
this suit in the Common Pleas, and the hrst thing
! he did was 70 set out that he did not know she
/ had been previously married. He then puts ad-
vertsements in the papers calling for Information
| of John Craig, who married Maria Pollock. he
then gave out that Craig was coming, that ms
passage was paid, &c that the t20 reward had
| been sufficient, but no John Craig IS here yet
The evidence be has sought TO bring IN IS tnat
! John Craig lives ia Ireland, aud John CrRigs may
| be as thick as John Smiths in New York. But
| the witness had never known Maria Pollock never
knew the John Craig she speaks OF as the husband
! of Mrs. l. the defendant Unless you produce
witness who knew both of the parties and that
they were man and wife, the testimony can be oil
| no avail. To know person of the same name as
one of the parties goes but little way to prove
marriage. ,.-,.
The law says that party who absents himself
for Eve consecutive years, and upwards, from his
wife, the latter shall be at liberty to marry again,
and said marriage shall be binding, unless set
aside by the Court. If said second marriage Is
set aside by the Court it only annuls from the
| tine of decree and wife is entitled to all her