The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-04-24

/ SUPREME couRT-sPEcIAL TERM.
AYRL 1o.-EdWs Forrest ads Catharine NJ Forrest.
OPINION EpMosDs.
great MAS 81 matter has been dragged into this mo
ton BY the papers both sides which has nothing
do with the question before and which regretted
the because Of the labor to which subjects me- Of
hunting through wide meadow Of margin for so In
considerable rivul-t Of water have nothing to do
this motion with the question Of the guilt innocence
Of either Of these parties Of the main charge involved in
the controversy whether their behaviour towards
each other and wife, is just6able not, and
counsel ought not ~ have permitted the parties to stun
the papers full Of irrelevant and mpcrtnent matter
The question which 10 pss- upon Is simply the pro-
prety OF retaining the Injunction which Mrs Forrest
has obtained; and that embraces three Propositions
A. to restraining him from dsposing Of his property
= From moicsting hi. wife D. From prosecuting his
suit in the Of pcnn yvania The first pro-
po-nnr were virtually disposed Of the motion 10 dis
so- the writ Of and repeat the remarks which
the made that there is given for apprehend
ing that the defendant will state from
time to time and be finally within the jurisdiction Of
TINS court when its Judgment shall BE- pronounced and
large property beyond the jurisdiction Of the court and
there nothing but the fears Of the plaintiff that may
do otherwise This Is not sufficient TO warrant an in
junction. any than it would the ne Great And
now add to the suppicant that the defendants con-
sion that he might modest the plaintiff herself during the
tendency Of the suit has been satisfactorily explained
that there is nothing left but the fears Of the plaintiff 10
wairant thi part Of the process SO far then the in
junction restraints the defendant from dsposing Of his
property and from moesting his wife, be
The remaining question is Of much din guilty
and in which has not been easy for arrive
satisfactory conclusion This depends the question
election law. and various others is often attended with
difficulty and accompanied with very nice distnc-
tons and some conflicting decisions in our books Upon
this subject the evidence H. side that he defend
ant born in Philadelphia and resided there till his
marriage when he changed his residence to New York
that 10 the time Of hs from his wife he had
house in Philadelphia which he had provided his
mother and sister but which, after his marriage he did
occupy himself after the separation he was at
that house and said to his sister that that his
only home, and that he avowed to Judge Conrad he
had resumed his r.sidence in Philadelphia On the other
he ia he IL nj
ally in New York that he kept his establishment
at Font Hl. which he had intended NJ his permanent
residence and bought furniture for il that he
voted in Westchester county that in his petition
Legislature Of Pennsylvania which by him.
he described himself as resident OF New York at the
time he mad these ayowals to his sister and Judge
rad and that he made mortgage in which he described
HIM elf n resident Of New York So that, the
hand is merely his declaration about June lS49 he
had resumed his residence in Philsdephia, unaccompa-
ni,d by any net. (not sleeping there nght)
carrying his ntcution amt the other hand his
oath before the Penns, vana legislature his voting
New York aud his description Of himself in deed all
showing that he still resident Of New York The
description In the deed would far that matter l.
concerned etop him from denying his residence in New
York and may be supposed that his oath in Pennsyl
ysnia sufficiently solemn to settle the matter
But he added to it an act equally grave, that
namely, of voting in this State. which he had no
right to do unless resident here. To have given
that vote, he NUT have been a resident Of this
State for year preceding the 9th Of November
1s49 resident Of Westchestcr county the then last
four months resident of that election district thirty
days next preceding and az the time an actual resident
Of the town The declaration which he thus his
residence in November. 1Sl9 il wholly consistent with
the statement which he made to the Pennsylvania Legs-
laure in February 1850 that he bad been resident in
New York till December, 1S49. but is at with the
claim which is set up this motionthat from June,
1919 he resident Of Philadelphia. do not well
see how he could distinctly and explicitly have in
dcatcd that in and after june ls49 and until at least
December Of that year. he resident Of this
1t world be waste Of time and toll for to fill this
opinion with detailed examination II the which
have referred on this question Of residence 1t is
enough for TO be fully that they show the rule
Of law TO be in conformity with good in pronouuc
ing that at least up December 1s4a the
resident in New York and that he is mistaken in sup
posing that by avowng in June 1S49 his intention
his residence in Pennsylvan he able did
actually change his dence to that state IT, then he
did change his residence in June ls4 he changed il
in December 1Si9. not at ALL appears the pa
pers before me- II he change at all but j. still
resident here is competent for him give the
courts If Pennsy vanu jurisdiction to grant him di-
not with the consent Of his wife, much less
without it III he did change It, and such change
In entire good faith and without reference to di-
still his suit in Pennsylvania which had been
trained by tine injunction in this cannot be sustain
ed because he had not been resident there year
before he commenced bis suit and without such resi-.
dence divorce can be granted. But ii he did
change his residence and that for the purpose giving
the courts Of that State jurisdiction Of his nothing
Ge.er sc.e1 IN OUT eour,s 'nan .naa uen smp"ray
in a,idea iegis and will be dsrcgared e Kent. IIi)
In jackson jackson, John. r. i2i the parties
married and resided in this state. In October the wife
went to Vermont for the purpose II obtaining divorce
disrcgardcd IT, because 1t in fraud upon In
Borden Fitch, Is John r. no where a similar divorce
Ind been obtained, II disresarded Chief Justice
Thompson in delivering the opinion said that 10
ton such divorce contrary to the rs principles Of
justice. And in bradshaw Heath IL Wcnd i23 this
court held that IL they considered the plaintiff dami-
ciled in New York when she obtained divorce in Con-
ncctcut then the divorce should not be considered
Of any validity In every view he case therefore the
suit which dcfcndant has brought ia the courts Of
Pennsy l,snia H. which he cannot sustain or In
which II he did obtain by the default or COL
fusion his wife that decree would b. dsregared by
of his State for IL would be always npe,cn. for
courts TO examine Into facts upon which Is alleged
| .s.ls,, Lau1 unt. Al,fu lx
lU9 Under such circumstances has the plaintiff in this
suit who Is donciied in this state, right 70 invoke the
aid a the courts Of this state to Protect her against this
illegal prosecution Of her in another State by her hus-
hand he being within this state aud subject t. the iuri
dicton If it, courts tpon this point further
shorty bc cit ell than the clear aud explicit
guage Of story supported a. its ty the numerous
horitic to which he refers Although the courts Of
country have authority IN say proceedings In the
courts d another they have undoabted authority to
control all persons and things within their terri
tora limits. When therefore. bo.h parties to a suit in
q foreign country rusidcn. within the territorial
limits f another the courts Of equity in the latter may
act ~ personaa upon those parties aud direct them by
injunction, to proceed further In such suit Ia
such thcic courts act upon acknowledged prin
cipes Of public law Ia regard 10 juisdction They
do not pretend direct control the foreign court
| but without regard To the situation Of the subec,
matter Of the dispute, they consider the equities be-
tween the parties, and decree n Perscea. according
10 thusc.equics and erfr obedience thsir DEGREES
ny process ~ perscaam. e story III. Jur, sect se3D
Ard in sect go lac adds" Ii J. now bel that whenever
the parties resident within country the courts Of
thai country have full authority to net upon thcm per-
Onay with respect the subject ot suits la forci
county. the cnds uf Justice may require, and WITH
that view g. order them t. take emit q take steps
and procccdngsn any other court 81 Justice whether in
the ANY foreign country Aud tbLs doctrine has
been applied IN the courts OF this State O. suits and
udg, in other state courts rh.rr the latter
COM admni-tt proper relief Mead Merritt
Paige a. lu2l In this latter the Chancellor in
Inmates though 10 not understand Him ~ distinctly
i,rtn that from considerations II comfy aud public
policy will not exercise tha ppatr with which
i thu. clothed where suit ht been actually commenced
IN the foreign court. d. not find any authorities to
sustain that position: While cn The other hand the
null Nl-.LN in LII. ln