The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-06-20
COMMON PLEAs-PART I.
Before Judge Ingraham.

Before Judge Ingraham.
JUNE 19.-CGtherine f. p. Walker BIZ Christian
an acton for divorce. The complaint showed
that the plaintiff and defendant were married. at
Bath, On the 18th Of July, ls40, and that both
parties are now residents of New York; that from
the said 18th Of July to about December 1850,
plalntln lived and cohabted with defendant as her
husba,.}, by whom she had three children; and
that dn1ng that time the defendant committed
numerous adulteries. The complaint concluded in
the usual way, by praying for a divorce. In his
answer, the defendant averred that neither he nor
the plaintiff were citizens Of New York. He
denied the charges Of adultery brought against
him, and further set FORTH that if these adulteres
had been committed by him, the plaintiff, in the
month Of December, 1860, forgave him for the COM
mission OF them. He, moreover, set up a counter
charge Of adultery against the plaintiff, for which
ne also prayed for divorce, and further that the
court would adjudge to him the care, custody, and
education of the three infant children issue Of his
marriage with plaintiff.
Mr. A. F. Smith opened the case for the plaintiff
after which Edwin X. Yale, being duly sworn, test
fed IS folows:-I am landlord Of the Mansion
House, Brooklyn; have known Mrs. Walker, the
pialssSf in this suit, since September 49, 1853; she
rsw to my house in Brooklyn with her father
motAer, and three children she has remained at
my house, with the exception of few days, ever
sine; they came to make arrangements for board;
she furnished her paror herself.
Cross-examined--They did not all stop at that
time; ii was not one of my usual arrangements 10
let boarders furnish their own rooms; plaintiff sent
for her furniture about the LIST of November; she al
ways paid me herself, usually in City Bank money
The witness was here asked the names of
other persons besides the plaintiff who might have
resided then at his house, which questions he was
unable to answer without referring to his books.
Mr.. Busted moved for postponement Of the cross
examination until the books could be procured but
this was denied by the Court.
Examination OF witness continued-There were
no terms made for the board of Mrs Walker and
family; she paid her bill like other boarders on the
first of every month; | had no conversation with
Mrs Walker as to her coming to reside in the State
OF New York; did not inquire if she had hus
band always supposed her married, as there was
evidence of it in her three daughters; Captain Nc
Manus first told me she was married. he came to
reside at my house, and saw and recognized Mrs.
Walker there; never knew what plaintiff means
were; never inquired ! suppose her children go
to school, as see them leave the house with their
satchels
Rufus Story deposed--I know Robert /. Rue; he
is my brotherin-law; he lives at Bergen Point, and
is in very bad health unable to attend this trial. he
went to live there in May 1854; his disease is bron-
chtis.
Charles Galby deposed--I know Wildes P. Walker;
was introduced to him at the Eldridge street jail
in the winter of 1852 or '53; don't know that
ever saw him write; ] have received short notes
from him.
The deposition Of Mr. Rue taken before A. Oakley
Hal, Esq, on the 2lst February, 1864, was here
defendant, but the objection was overruled. The
reading of the deposition, however, was postponed.
Francis 7. Young, attorney at law know the
defendant; have often seen him write.
Mr. Busted, for defendant, objected on the ground
that the witnesses information was derived from his
connection with Walker as counsel and client.
The Judge said that by the witnesses testimony
the relationship between attorney and client had
ceased, therefore the evidence was admissible.
BWitness then identi ed four letters in the hand
writing Of defendant. They were produced for the
purpose of proving his residence within the city of
New York Witness also identified twenty three
letters to be in the handwriting of the defendant.
The reading Of these documents was postponed.
Cfossexamined-I have seen Mr.. Walker write
about five uldred tmes have seen him write in
other places beside in Eldrdge street Jail and in
my own office l do not recollect where, excep
that ! saw him once write in the Sherif's office
all the documents shown to me ! can swear are in
the handwriting of Mr.. Walker.
The deposition Of Mr.. Rue was then read. He
was jaer of Eldridge street Jail from LIST January
1850, to LIST January, 1858; he knew Walker, the
defendant, having made his acquaintance at the
jail in July, 1850. The main fact to which Mr..
Rue deposed was that he went one evening with
defendant to an establishment at the northeast
corner Of Grand and Mercer streets, which estab-
lishment was afterwards stated by Captain Turn.
bull, of the Eighth district police, who was called
as witness, to be place where women of loose
character were in the habit of congregating.
The court adjourned at o'clock, and the trial of
this cause will be con tinued to-day.