The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-06-24

first, we learn that several hundreds were killed on
both sides.
The walker Divorce Case.
COMMON PLEAs-PARr II.
CATHERINE =. P. WALKER, BY HER NEXT FRIEND,
CHRISTIAN 8. SLOANE, VS.. wLDEs P. WALKER.
Before Hon. Judge Ingraham.
FIFTH DAY.
JUNE 23-The court room was as crowded as usual
this morning, at The opening Of the Walker divorce
case. Among those present were large number Of
or were interested in the suit.
Mr.. Churchill for the defence as soon as the Jury
had answered to their names, moved to strike out
the evidence Of Amasa Hagar, on the ground that it
was not pertinent to any Of the plaintiffs allegations
in her complaint.
Mr.. Blunt, after reading the allegations in the
complaint, which charged the defendant with visit
ing houses Of i'll fame in Mercer street, cited the evil
dence Of Hagar and Wark, (see report in HERALD
Of Thusday) and commended that the facts there
sworn to were sufficient to go to the jury whose
province it was to settle the question of the perth
neney of the evidence to the charge.
The Court said that the jury would be instructed
to disregard this evidence if the defence could show
that it was not pertinent.
Mr.. Busted then renewed the motion, Of
which he had given notice yesterday, to dismiss
the action, on the ground that at the time of the
fling of this complaint Mrs. Walker was not
resident Of this State, and that during the
time Of the commission OF these alleged acts
Of adultery, neither Mr.. Mrs. Walker we're resi-
dents OF this State and that the court had no urs
dictOn over the case at all. lie said that all actions
Of divorce were governed by statutory regulation.
Where the question of jurisdiction was made an
issue in the case by the peadngs it must be clearly
proven. If the issue was taken in the answer of the
defendant that at the time of the fling Of the
plant the parties were not residents Of this State
affirmative proof of the existence of this courts
jurisdiction must appear. In order to give the
court jurisdiction of three things must afirma-
lively appear-trst, the parties or one of them must
have been inhabitants OF this State at the time of
the commission Of the offence. 1t could not be con-
tended here that at the time of the commission of
the first offence Mr.. Walker was an inhabitant of
this State. Yale, the first witness for the plaintiff,
swears that Mrs. Walker came to Brooklyn on the
10Th September, 1888. Up to this time she had
been living in Maine. Certainly at the time of the
alleged commission Of these offences Mrs. Walker
was not an inhabitant of the State, and therefore
she can take nothing by her writ and complaint.
Secondly, it is within the authority of this court to
grant divorce when the marriage has been
solemnized within the State, but proof has been
adduced where this marriage was soemnized.
If the powers Of the court have been properly
invoked, that jurisdiction must be founded
on one Of the three subdivisions of the section Of
the statute. The Court here will remark the care
fulness Of the language employed by the Legislature.
For injured parties to obtain relief by divorce in
our courts they must be inhabitants of the State ut
the time the acts complained of were committed.
In the first subdivision, where both husband and
wife are inhabitants of the State, the word "acua
does not occur. In the second subdivision, which
speaks Of the solemniZation Of the marriage, the
injured party must be an actual" inhabtant of the
State; and SO in the third subdivision. He con-
tended that the word actual" was used here ca in
dust,ia, that there was difference between inhab-
itants and actual inhabitants. The question then
was, whether Mrs. Walker was an actual inhabitant
Of the State Of New York ad; Now, it appeared in
went to the Mansion House, in Brooklyn; that her
name was inserted in the books as a resident of
Maine, and as transient boardcr; she was married
woman, and her domcil was the same as that Of her
husband No proof has been brought forward to
show that the parties were living separate. If the
other side has failed in proving that they then
Walker had abandoned his family; if they have
not shown this, they have failed to show a
Jurisdiction The learned counsel produced u
great number of authorities to show the nature
Of domicil, and that if right in domic
is once fixed it will continue, notwithstanding the
absence Of the party, until new one is taken.
The counsel referred, among other authorities on
these points, to the of Jennngson and others
w. Atwood, and Greene vs.Greene 10 and II Picker
ing R., Greenleaf R. 465 and Id. 1896, Bradford
r. 60.
Mr.. Blunt said that the following section of the
sci (see Revised Statutes, p. 3oO):-"lf married
woman, at the time of exhibiting BIZ against her
husband under the provisions of either Of the two
last articles, shall reside in this State, she shall be
deemed an inhabitant thereof, although her husband
may reside elsewhere"
The Court said that whether the defendant was
or was not an nhabitant of the State Of New York
was question Of fact, which. like all other facts
would have TO be submitted to the jury.
The case for the defence was then opened.
Mr.. Busted rose and said:-May it please the
Court, and you gentlemen Of the jury, on the 18th
day Of July, lS40 at the town of Bath, in Name
Wfldes +. Walker, the defendant in this action
joined together in the holy bands Of matrmony with
Catherine f. p. Patten. The nuptial rites were at
tended with circumstances Of more than common
interest. The father of the fair one not only re-
puted to be- but in fact was, the weathest burgher
in the whole State The sails of his ships freighted
with rich merchandise. whitened every sea. ca
laugh) The lands in his neghborhood were called
after his name; the great men OF the city and State
gladly received him into their companionship and
council. This magic wand converted into shining
gold all the baser substances which his genius for
money-making subjected TO his will. He was clothed
in purple and fine linen, and Jared sumptuousy
every day; his magnificent equipage, with the gay
| emblazonments OF heradry, and the gaudy trap
ping of outriders and footmen, proclaimed daily the
power and wealth of this peer OF the realm and he
was the envy and wonder Of the parvenu who,
starting in life with George Z. Patten, had been left
immeasurably behind in the race. He was rich
| and he was proud. In his lordly mansion in Maine
ne kept lib Uent JeWtlb. stVeTdi WtEe
once the pride and soace of his heart and attracted
| to his board all of the other sex who, per
force of good fortune, possessed the magic sesame.
One Of those girls, then in her nineteenth year. was
the bride of the occasion to which have advertcd.
Blushingly beautiful, highly accomplished, and
literally educated, she was to all human ken good
enough to be the wife Of European autocrat, yet
none too good docking at the defendant) to be the
wife Of a son Of New England a mother Of Ameri-
con freemen. She had been wooed and she had
been won by the man into whose keeping, for veal
or woe, she placed her destinics. Scoming the
opposition Of the millionaire father to her alliance
with q man whose little all counted but some beg
carly five Thousand dollars, she wed to be his wife,
cen though she cea ed to be her fathers daughter
The pride Of the citizen had to bow before the
majesty of parental love, and Wildes T. Walker was
condescendiDgly allowed to enter the family. The
happy groom, then IN his twcntysixth year. was the
possessor Of that kind of character which is The birth
right of an American boy. Industrious, capable,
honest and fearless, he lived in the future, and
made the present but the entering wedge 70 the
glory that was to come. He had dared TO beard
"the lion in his den. the Douglas in his hail.