The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1852-03-18

ctNGVLAR DIVORCE CAsE.-TEere is bill
tol divorce now pending before the Legislature
o. mississippi, in which points of singular
Character are involved. They are thus given
by the Jackson Flag of the Union:
Il appears that Samuel Foster, a respecta.
be citizen OF IaIahatche county-for whose
relief, and that of his wife, Mary, the bill is in
teLded-was pioneer of that section ofcoun-
try and, many years ago, married q quadroon
ludiaf woman with handsome fortune. She
lad had TWO children by previous maria ge.
aud there were three children of the marriag e
betHeen her and Mr.. Foster. towards of SIX
Years ago, they parted, aud since that time
YeZdtIous lawsuits have been pending between
the parties. They have been, and still are. in
ct.aacery, and Foster has had an action a inst
Lef Tor divorce. 1t was confidently expected
that Foster would have got decree of divorce
at term OF court last year, aud he told his
counsel that he was DESTROYS TO De married
again, and wished immediate information from
INA as soon as The decree was obtained, as on
Co'aiLlng such information he would imme.
dta'eiy marry. His consul advised him that
Al re did not hear from him, he might consider
tsat the divorce had been obtained.
Foster did not hear from his counsel within
tie time designated and on the assurance pre
VioGsly received from that gentleman, married
a lady of Tippah county. But after marriage.
ne received intelligence from his counsel that,
from some cause, the term of court at which
re expected TO have got a divorce, failed
Here are the parties married, with the former
marriage undissOlved, and it appeared by the
testimony given, by invitation from the House
to-day, by MIR. Watson, of Holly Springs.
counsel of Mrs. Foster by the first marriage,
that instead of permitting decree of divorce,
sNe, Mrs. Foster, has filed an answer, charg-
irg adultery and other acts of criminality upon
Tim, and has made her answer cross bill.
claiming alimony and her rights of property.
one there alleges, moreover, that Fosters
Conduct was such that she could not stay
under his root, and her counsel, day, stated
liz the hall that those who knew ali the cir
cuastances were confident that she could
prove her alleg atoms. Her counsel said, how
ever, that if this bill could be SO amended as
TO secure to her all her rights of property, she
"oIid have no objection to its passage, as she
desired to have nothing TO do with Foster be-
You'd getting her property from him.
The bill now before the House, which has
passed the Senate provides. for relief Of Eos.
tea and bis new wife from those disabilities
which they incurred by ar Illegal marriage,
but provides that no action Oh it shall inter-
fere with the rights of property between the
parties. The chief questions raised so far as
legislative power could CO. were first whether
this Legislature would not i'll legalizing this
marriage, interfere with the rights of property
OF children by the former marriage which it had
TO power 10 do; and third, whether If the Legis-
lature legalized this marriage; and the action
TOT divorce OF former marriage was still pending
before the courts, this Legislature would not
be knowingly investing Mr. Foster with two
wives.