The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-04-17
Supreme Court-Spocial Term.
Before Hon. Judge Roosevelt


UNMARRIED wOMEN's RIGHTs-LIFE In NEW YORK
A FAST MAN A FRAIL WOMAN.
Conkling Us. Margaret Ed,oards.-RoosEvxLr JUS
tice This is bill filed by an alleged creditor
to obtain relief against alleged fraudulent con-
veyance made by the debtor to his alleged wife, Tho
wife, called who is the sole defendant in the suit
denies that there any lawful marriage between her
and her apparent husband and insists that far
any fraud her part against the plaintiff his claim
fraud upon her. coDtrved between the seeming debtor
and his seeming creditor, to defeat IL possible by =
simulated debt the previously vested rgpts the de-
fen dant That Ms Edwards designation applied to
the defendant, assumed name clearly proved
Her real name Cross ard admitting that her first
and only husband had been absent and uphesrd Of long
enough to warrant another union there color for
the supposton that anv such union took place.
Indeed, Edwards, the alleged second husband, during
the whole time OF the injection and do to his
had lawful wife living and undivorced. He neither was,
therefore, could have been, intended De- the
hut OF the defendant nor she his wife in name
But although such may be. IL indubtably is tho
tual truth of the case the it Is conended -
este pped from setting it up She saw fit appsars for
which the character Of her business sufficiently
explains to afx to the entrance Of her premises door
plate, inscribed with the letters Mrs. Eiwardsn and
in the from Ed herself Shaw and
from sha immediately back her, she allowed herself
to be called 'the fe Of Thomas Edwards But did
the plaintiff if at ALL ever crsoit Edwards the faith
of these appearances? On the contrary is 1t not evil
6ent-indeed, 1t 10 not denied-that he knew the true
character Of the relation subsstng between his brothsr
in-law ana the by whom, effect that brother
IN law was supported2 The very which he
seeks to wrest from her. openly devoted to the
buness she was known to follow and were the fruits
it would seem, Of that business The defendant tnen
not the wife OF Edwsrde and against the plaintiff
Is not estopped from saying So Her earnings, there
fore, however disreputably gained, her own; hey
certainly did not selong to the man she kept Aud II
they were in truth the means by which the house
purchased that house. neither law justice,
claimed by his creditors whether cousve bona fde.
These niug rhe states averaged from
shsy were no ss
(not he Aspt account in less than three dsreat
savings banks-ths Bowery, the Seamen's and the
Chambers ssreetall In her Of Margaret Cross
or Margaret Edwards Her accumulated savings UNDER
her own individual CONTROL appears BY these accounts
amounted In November, ls49 when the contract the
purchase Of the house made to about $4,000. On
the 14th Of February following she drew out S2107 g.
Between that Gay and the 23d when the purchase was
completed and the deed and mortgage recorded there
n payment TO Brown, the vsneor, of betweea two
three thousand doare which therefore, could have
been and which the weight Of evidence shows think
coucusvey, must have BEEN made by the defendant.
She had eaps Edwards had none; she saved he spent
may bs called had the virtue emulation; where
he sporting character Of TIE witnesses dss-
cribes him. lover OF fast borses and himself ast
man., The shameless public attache and dependant of
public woman Such mans means are to be proved,
DOT presumed He dead it is true but the plaintiff
his reno, and intmste, and brother in law and must
have known bis resources If any. II he kept bank
count, where was his bank and who his banker II
none, whence did he derive his means and how did he
guard heg Instead enlghteoing us on this point the
plaintiff leaves us to grops way best can-un-
less may, use torch introduced by him for .
very different purpose To show that Edwards his
deboe he produces two promissory otes and due bill
amounting together to about $1,000. Tnete papers
cept the signature, all in the plaintiffs handwriting
II they speak the truth land they 40 not the PLAN
f has no cause for act,on they show that as early
May, 1849, Edwards indebted settlement Of
accounts 81 200 and that instead Of paying, he
went on increasing the burthen by contracting further
liabilities in nine months, to equal additional amount
and upwards They prove, II genuine, that he In
debt moro than - 000-ard, wbesher genuine other
WISE they do not prove nor does other evidence In
the prove that he had anything to show for this
indebtedness On the contrary tns proof far as It
goes both positive and negative direct and presump-
tive, all tends to the opposite :uson When asked
wbPt was given for these notes, the plaintiff stands
mute. BE might have spoken, not himself admit, but
through witnesses; and yet he says nothing The pre-
sumption s, that he preferred darkness rather than
cess while In the latter there certsnty of defeat
1t has been suggested, rather family however, that
Edwards admitting his other deficiencies the
OF the gains of the establishment conducted BY the
called Mrs. Edwards. They lived together IL is true in
the house, and man and wife. But shameless he
was, he neither claimed, pretended to claim, the
earnings OF her business She received them in her owp
name, and in her own name deposited and controlled
them; and he disputed her right to do She
sometimes indeed paid his taiors bills But ne.osity,
not justice it Is obvious, dictated the act II she fed,
and clothed and lodged him. the gratuity created
obligation on her part to pay debts, to give him
her house. She may have finnedand snned often aod
delberately-but it does not rest with him, those
claning through him. 70 cay itor to throw the hrst
stope any stone upon bis fellow transgressor At
all events they cannot claim her earnings, be their orr
gin ever disreputable The house, then, although
PLACID in his name for few days. merely for the
pose Of the mortgage which she afterwsrds paid
fact hers and the conveyance Of IL TO shaw
conduit and his immediate conveyance back 10 her.
tration Of unlawful fraud. Judgment must, there
FORE be entered declaring that the sought
to be impeathed by the plaintiff not fraudulent
against him, and, consequence that his complaint
be dismissed with costs.