New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-08-31

L
decree Of divorce here shown for the 6rst time on
Esd April sS3 II in my handwriting copied freo
draf given TO me. have no reason to dcabt By Nr.
Van Hoyerturg; have got Il with me. The witness %
easd TO producing as II was paper belonging to Mr.
Van Hovenburg MI Dunn remarked tina, Mr. vsa He-
vensug in his testimony said be first the decree h
ss nc, G"n r The Rsesr The srd 'd%sS the dris =
wiring except the figures IL in filing mp the date which
are mine | suppose the certificate written a3d
April. when il bears date; did no, zee Mr.. Van Hovea-
the of the clerk and the seal the paper
the afternoon If that day; got Il from VIM Van Hevea
ssyn with Instructions to leave with Mr. the certified
copy II decree Of divorce and get nom him the 30 ccun
-ei feel found Mr. Rsvestyn st an ONCE IN Bakery
place Of Greenwich ST. ne gave me the go and
LETT with him the certificate sss Of the money to
Mr. Van Hovsnburgh, and erei,ed him. it being Sstur
dsv 81 on nv weekly wages; knew when NJ: Heven
burrh brought back the paper signed aud sealed ser
had copied II. and he took IL away. THAI there nsd
been Judgment in the case in the morning, bat
thapsard DEGREES before the afternoon l think my
impression handing the paper to Mr. Ravestyn on going
TO his Office that there had been decree though
II there had been Judgment would have passed through
nv hands DO not wish 10 answer that know there was
not decree II mie ht implicate myself served
the notice here shown. on Mr. Dunn the counsel Tor
The defendant five days after taking said certified copy
II decree TO Mr. Raves'yn for the purpose OF bringing the
have spoken TO Mr. Van II about this have not spoken
Of the danger the proceeding He has not instructed me,
IN any way what should say on this examination moe
have taken advice or person; Mr. Van iovenhargh
told me he procured the signature or seal nor o
know how he procured IT, or whether he procured Z at
all, never saw copy hut this think decree was
obtained in anv other case the day this bears date bs'
their " - one ON the ssth There ether case q
my knowiedge from which the last part OF the
liz sheets, fastened together by SIX tasl
taken and altered instead "a this do NOT think tht
Mr. Van Hovenburgh placed the receipt in my hsnis SIX
weeks before he testified he did think he gave To
me on the DAY with it TO Mr. Ravstyn; know II
no other In the office where alleged certificate was
made out where there had been M Judgment dbl mt
m az no on r
about il; | did not say to Mr. Van Hovenburgh a. no
said in his testimony that did that the papers were with
The clerk Of the court Mr. Bcese the clerk, asked mo
about the ss,h of July what had become of the p,ers
and to avoid explanation told him would hook az our
register and let him know but have kept out of his way
ever since; Mr. Van Hovenburgh and had converse
ton about the matter aerw ards the substance OF which
how the unpeasantness OF the proceeding was to
be avoided it subject that appeared to be avoided
BY both OF w. by mutual consents Is not true ss stated
by Mr.. Van Iovenburgh in his testimony tina, acknow
lodged knew the proceedings were not all right no
never asked for explanation rs he said he ddnor
did ever say To him. he stated, that Mr.. Rsvestya
kept coming to the office and him the paper to a.
believe the namo of Richard D. Connolly. clerk to the
certificate in question. be in the hand writing Of Mr.
Boese the clerk OF this branch OF che court and the
ses be the seal of this court the concluding part
with the name might have been the conclusion OF sonc
other decree after made out the copy and before was
signed sealed, suppose laid IL where lay all my
done papers sometimes tie the sheets together with
silk tape and sometimes with piece Of Irvine there Il
nothing indicate that there is anything different in this
/ gave 1t to Mr. Van Hovenburgh.
There might have been difficulty in getting the
"d' Ssye between the counsel Mr. Van
Hovenburgh and Mr. Dunn, how the suit was To be car
RCD out there some doubt whether the charge OF in
fidelity could be brought home against the defendant Mr.
Moran. little doubt that nfidelty could be FULLY
proved against Mrs Moran the plaintiff herself the idea
take the proof OF defendant who also asked for
divorce On that ground against the plaintiff and let the
decree Of divorce be against her that there should be
divorce any rate client Mrs. Moran, did not
L.l.. y.txb. tnaet fka
So long as the divorce obtained she would have
been just a. well satisfied with it. aud considered
herself as free TO marry again as she naa Ill, 90
! its a Ialty from whom a divorce il obtained mar
ryng agnn during the lifetime OF the other yet the stat
ute provides no punishment il they should get married,
and i Is only contempt Of Count THE decisions we be
leve t,orent Ii understood both parties would
have been satisfied with such an arrangement Mr. Dunn
SUI, me't an hi. ,a., 10 s~ s"sious divoocc.
having been retained b. Mr. Moran to bring ain
MIS-. IT,, but Mr.. Van ncyenburgh got the start Of him
and brought ole against Mr. NJ
vss here shown that the alleged certificate Of decree
said nothing OF prohibiting either party from marrying
again. The original DRAFT sad either patty might marry
hat tho ,,ois weie erased The witness Mr. Eard stat
ed that LIE knew cases in which Judges in the decree In
serted clause permitting both OF the divorced parties 70
marry agsD, ..L NJ. proo.s tina
Clerk, few questions. -,
Thomns Breese sworn-lle trt saw Of The alleged yi
con, decree shown, il was brought to me go.h or s'n
Juy H. ur Rayestyni he handed 1t to me and asked
,sTe lad bee divorce GRANTED law ny name nero
all The clerks In the eou. II l. or mv n. "'oI ana
being busy, said Of seal OF The the" coo ~v'I
not have loen there, with tn. -ot find an t
looked ON the record but could IooI . ,aaa
decree; osked him to wait till coun. look among
my, paper, not knowing but | might ha.. ''''
laid il; this was 10 clock he went away ar.
said he would return at o'clock, and took tho paper with
Linn Mr. Van iioyenburg and Mr. Eilad In asked
Mr. Van III If he knew anything about the papers In this
cofe D. said that divorce had been granted and must
have said The papers Mr. Eard came up and said he
wonldloOk at his register fanythng had been done
he said he was engaged in the of Mead against Mead
and would be there in the afternoon and ten me- Mr. Van
Ho.enauigh esked me II Mr. Raye.yn wns coming back
again told him he aud Nh. Van II. said 10 Esrd
81 must see RsyeBsfyn Mr. X did back agnin
hst day in tho afternoon saw Mr. Van II. and Mr. IA
lad within FIVE minutes of each other they both said they
had looked at their register and II ~ regular and
right then found The order Of reference and Mr.
Hoyf the referee who said that such matter had ever
tsen before him two days aforwarl Mr. ksyestyn
down wih the decree again. after had Mr.. H,u
asked Mr.. Van HOvenbu, IN to vhom the matter had
been referred aud he replied he did not recoec bat he
believed TO Mr. French
The Signature to this paper Is mine bat have
collection OF ever signing ceranly never signed il to
this decree and hnk the cOnciuing see having tho GER
fcaie and seal must have been the concluding sheet
OF sone olhcr decree Certified copies OF other DEGREES
had been obtained FOR Mr. Van Hoyenburgh either deliy
cred to himself Mr. Esrd in April and the conclusion
Ia my mind II that the end OF this have been the end
OF some oer decree. never give certified copy of
decree without hrs comparing H. There was decree in
this ease in the Court.
Mr.. Dunn said he supposed sufficient had been shown
to warrant the present motion in regard setting aside
hold to the charge against Mr. Van Hoyenburgh Both
he and 5Ir Ellard appear have acted very bad but
the latter has come up and frankly given hs testimony
AID although that II excuse, sha not press unless
the Court should think proper TO do % the case against
him.
The Judge, in relation to the motion to strike Mr.