The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-09-13

qusnSly. Upon Ansther occasion vh4e the PLAINTIFF
stairs, altar riding In tho morning, saw the de-
fsndant standing ON the all Of Barton's bed
room doc, Bsson u. N the ssS ISs stisl
bed asleep, ana he her in ionsthg 70 dri1h; and
she saw Barton and dsndAnt standing the bath rsem,
adjoining the defendants bedroom He had on no hng ous
MS cap 1nG ,h ana TN ns thew
the defendant went into her bedroom and Barton went
out Of witnesses sight into the dining ROOM This was a
deal of charity 10 recon Gle these circumstances wish
belief in Mrs. Pughs innecence, even there was an ab'
were suffered to dsrsss,d such testimony as was adducsd
In this case hee would be NO certainty OF
the fact Of adultery IN any case Whether y coo1
upon the mere win or caprice Of the jury There must
be new trial
judgment must be ret aide The defendant under
the Of twenty one when the action was brought and
NEXT friend should nave BEEN appointed 70 Hsis.a'
uary, 1885, and therefore lacked nearly year Of bang
Of age when the suit commenced An attempt vas
ana vsiscy OF the parents, which Il Unnecessary to
consider for If she was Of age 1t would still have been
Adan, lsand I'LL It l. matter Of regret that the
judgment will have 70 be set aside and the plaintiff put
to the s.ps, Of prosecuting sns. for divorce me
to open the default should certainly have denied the
application. The conduct and charaSter Of the defend
papers, exhibit An amount of dspravty and shansess
that would scarcely b supposed to 30 possible
letter to her husband, when informed that he had oh
aineds divorce shows mind polluted and deprased to
an extent to DO found only In the most abandoned OF hsr
The judgment win therefore be set aside but with
out CO to- =
Hugh Lee u.s. Ann Le.-The affidavit Of the service Of
the summons served within the citand county
York The Code of 1S49 which WAS in force when this
cate Of service should itate the time and place Of
Code would be n.Csssary in this and in the Superior
Court to chow that the service made within the u
Iisdcon Of the court But is too Late to take ad
yansge any injustice in the proof Of the service More
"a. Agssa 9sf u nss amt
that the Eummops was never served upon hsr and tina.
after the plan,is death, when she attended before
the IN pursuanss Of the notice given BY the
pe
would be bound to set aside the judgment II such
were the fact But the proof of the Service by
the adavits read in opposition to this notion Is In my
Judgment conclusive The direct proof of the fact by
The witness Harley who made it, the testimony Of e.
about the time when Harley says he served it. and at the
place in Chambers street Centre where he
he served it, the further testimony Of Eard that she
days afterwards; Van Hovenhu,gs affidavit that she
tanned him to defend the suit. the existence Of the ps
ton for slinony, and her declarations and admis
sions to Attorney North disinteres.ed party, and
to other persons, are Of . character to remove al
the dscree Of divorce duly and regularly obtained
The proceedings against her being regular, her appi-
| entertained. The plaintiff is dead After he OBJ
tanned the divorce he intermarred with Mary Ann Has
kns who claims to share in his estate his lawful
widow the principal portions OF which estate consist
house ard lot the larger part of the purchase money
Of which Furnished by her from moneys accumulated
by her before she married Leo. Whsre divorce regu
arly obtained against defendant by default followed
in this case, by second marriage doubt whether any
court would disturb the new relations thus formed BY
Or fha applfn
ton of the defendant to be relieved from the default and
allowed to come in and depend upon the merits take
sequences Of her neglect, though the court
sheud believe that she bad originally good defence.
to rest hs denial Of the defendants application. This d
vorce was obtained October 1851 and he married in
the Febrpsry following It does not appear from the
this marriage but it distinctly appears from the teeti-
mopy Of Mr. Mott and Of John Lee that she lnew that
divorce had been obtained early December 1851 Mott
svears that when he spoke 70 her about H. the fall of
1851 she told him that her lawyer had neglected her
case and Lee that shortly after the divorce was
granted his wife showed the defendant In his presence
the report of the decision in the Sun newspaper She de-
mes u Is true all knowledge of the action and Of tina d.,
cree obta 60 anht her, but these witnes stand
upon tbs record while the truth of tns de-
nsges Who swear TO he oy them bat h the Wit
her employment OF Van Hvsu-~s-. au.1 ~. sait
and there is nothing to throy dscredt upon them toe
defe1cant has knowingly ard wfnlly 70 what
saife She was fully advised Of the actions AID knew
reary ago that judgment hsd been rs1dsred
against her sid yet from that time until the death Of
Mr.. Lee. about three months since. she mads no
ment to remain urdisurbed The acquiescence in tbs
Judgment during Leafs lifetime, OF which no explains
ton is given-for she rests upon ber denial OF al
knowledge of the proceediDgs-~ould be a sufficient
reason for refusing her application. To suffer her,
nov tba lee asad 10 come IL and contest the grounds
upon which the Judgment was eneeed the sole prnc
pal object Of which to enable her TO share Ia his estate
could &c justified Only under the conviction that her
gect to move in the matter for such length OF e and
during bis LIFE preceded from poverty ignorance or
other satisfactory cause and that great injustice he'd
been done her. Not only Is there absence of any such
but with the cspion Of the nnsu
Ported affidavit, there s nothing to create doubt
it was granted was Of the mset direct aud posys kind:
and believing as do that the defendant has wfully
sworn to an in the matter Of her knowledge
the institution OF the proceedings against her. csn
tach little weight to her simple Genial Of the duerous
Intercourse It is sworn to- moreover by these Witnesses
country, she married in Ireland to a man named
oNei who is still living and from whom she has
oeen divorced These Illnesses swear positively to tho
fSct that she and ONeii lived together in Ireland,
as man and wife, for two years, until they were
separated in CONSEQUENCE of her dissipated habits
One Of these witnesses the brother of ONie and his
testimony is Of the most conclusive character for he
swears that he went for the license to an adjoining coun.
ty and lived with defendant and his brother drpp the
two years that they lived together and another of the
wiuestes, Mary Reynolds who knew of the fact OF the
nsrrsge and knew the defendant from the time that
she was girl swears that she has frequently convered
with her about it in this country and that in one Of
these eonyersatons last winter she informed her why
ING ieit Oei hno came 90 This country. III thes6 wit
nesses are be believed and thsre to be Iea
ron TO doubt the truth Of their statements her marriage
with Lee was unlawful She committed serious crin
nal offence in entering into it. and could ACQUIRE no
rights under it even If this judgment of divorce was set
aside She Is now exempt By lapse Of time from prose-
cuon and puuifhment for such act but the fact Of
havrg perretrated IT. sufficient to stamp her cheraa
ter and show her to be person whose word or oath in
matter in which she ia directly interested Ia entitled
TO little or no consideration in court Of Justice Her
application win therefore be denied
superior Court.
Before Hon. judge Duer.
sfrT. ~ HOPE u.s. The Sixth and Eighth Ape.ne Rat
Redistribution 10 dissolve the INJUNCTION postponed on
the spphcston Of the defendants to the loh Of The