New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-08-07

h. urvvortion On an alleged heir at law All the saiss
Rivvsy sssips, M Ogden occupying house belonging
10 he estate and erected by Mr. Rdgway not long before
hs death in feminist, little east, we believe OF the
Hovery receiver on application OF one OF the three
hs;r, Of The first marriages appointed Mr.. Jeremiah
Rowland to take charge OF the rents ana pront OF tue
estste who has collected large sun and deposited IT, by
In the .ut lac sinst Mr. Ogden allowed 81 be proceeded
IN the question arose wholly as TO the legality validity
Of the marriage Of plaintiff ast marriage with Mr. Rdg
wsv The Superior Court In which il tried held
already stated that 1t void by Of the prohibit
ton against Mr.. X. marrying during the lifetime OF the
wife who had obtained the Divorce and the Court OF Ap
Appcaton Is now made on behalf of the three heirs Of
So previous marriages. for order dividing equally De-
said three the money in the hands OF the trust C0
~ w. less The costs aud expenses Of litigation pro0aoy
apwsrd Of clio 0J0 which is claimed should De aow
ed out Of toe fund, and thus in fact glyng 70 mem as
thew claim possession the whole estate. The matter was
before the Court on Wednesday, azd noticed 1t came
up ae ain on Saturday agreeSbly to adJouTnment AR
Lerd renewed the notion which was on application Of
NJ, Rennctt on her own behalf and the other two and
excluding the present Mrs Ridgway and her eight chill
drtn. ,,
tspod also the decins Of this Court and the Court Of
Appeals adverse to the claim OF the present mrs Rdg
way and her children.
relation 10 the question of divorce and the prohibition 10
merry sgtD, &c. The opinion stated that It would pro-
baby make no difference whether the prohibited party
wee married ont Of the State or in it. but a. the for
ner question does arise in this case 1t ia neces
sery pass upon tboh OF the marriages in the present
case that in which there had been divorce aud the sub
sequent one Acknowledged to have occurred IN this
State and the last marriage having taken place while
there was prohibition not to marry, II Is void -,
This being merely matter Of dover nothing - SAID IA
the opinion rs TO the legitimacy OF the children, but Mr.
Lord ,ad all the decisions, when there was Yod mar
NOS e, tended one way. ,..
Mrs. Ridgway III answer 10 the present application,
stated II az in 1891 she being then seen years OF age
Mr. Ridcway offered her marriage that they were mar
red in Augusi Of that year by the Rev Mr. Coggh ana
h.. ~ ..Il vrag
and N al sle was again married tn Mr. R-beng publicly
so in church in ls25-by the Rev Mr. Stafford, and she
contends thu she Is entitled 10 do"er anu er chnfen 10
II seems an order had been made there being no cues
ton her right to give to Mrs. Bennett one-eeventh
part of the estate and ehe s getting, Mr Brewster
ieouuse for Mrs Rdgwal said the rent and profits Of
on eleventh part Of fifty hOusts Mr. Brewster remarked
with considerable ling as to the apparent haste With
which this natter at this period Of the year he SAID IS
being driven throughhe referred 10 the terms OF the
application of Mrs Bennett throwing oboquy upon the
memory of her grandfather and her great hurry 10 get
hold O, property che had hand in Masking Even if she
n anxious 10 get possession OF an entire onethrd OF IL
Tire divine rule that TIE rims of the father shall be visited
upon the children, may apply he sad here al iea so lar
ns 10 make her afford 10 wait little while He also
thought there little haste on the part OF counsel
10 get their costs &c
pey of Mrs Rdgway who stated that sin the last trial
be had received Information which he deemed important
in reference to the other trial. when the injunction shall
have been removed
Mr. Lord in reply said MIA. Ridgway and her children
could bring mLny suits they fit, the iniunc-
fion being removed giving security for costs but that
would not affect this question which is merely TO give the
ren and profits which have been ang in the hands
of the Receiver back to those who i'll possession and
by whose application the Receiver appointed and he
thought it true the matter was closed.
Mefsrs lnglis Owen and Rapalo tcounsefor the three
Messrs Cutting, Lord Bdwen Wood and O'Couor, hav-
ing also been engaged in it, Alderman Barker
offered little remark, aud the different Judges asked
various questions of the counsel and seemed to take much
interest in the
Tho Clf ,Iustice said he thought doubt nj,
the present stage of the case while the other suits
pending on behalf of Mrs. Rdgway and her children,
whether the Court could orcer distribution OF the fund
hand unless the claiming to be sole heirs will give
security refund in the other suits successful
This il was inundated they would be unable TO do
An that can be said now the Chief Justice remarked is
that general principle has been established in relation
the suits but what the facts may be in regard TO the 9th
ers is yet TO be seen. Decision reserved.