New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-03-06
THE 0RIsE1oLD DIVORCE CASE.
COURT G,r COMMON PLEAS FOR IaE SIAf ANU
COUNTY OF PHILADELPhlA
c.s- Tam Present, Her Jsdses Tao Hpsos and Aii'os'
Feb 2e-THIED DAY.

=. b Co,y. said that he desired % make few miro
ducorv remarks before going into the merits Of The
csse he remarked tha. there one feature in the
esse that mast have struck Their Honors the absence
NJ the nars 10 the suit and the absence OF the parties
;,s,e.ted e1cep. Mrs Ann 8. Stephens and Mrs. b
LET who with others the instigator Of this unior-
inmate domestic DRAMA for he believed The respondent
herself cared very little a. 20 the matter. Iuow pro-
pose 10 read TO tie Court the entire affidavit inciad az
the portions which Mr.. Sherman omitted TO reado On the
grounds of dehcacy, a. he SAID
Mr. sherman suggested that the affidavit be hand
10 the Court. Mr.. c. consented, and the Court reed
in silence the affidavit which has already been reported.
Mr. Cuyler then proceeded To state the various
events in the history of the case which were mol
dentaDy important. That 10 remove the impression
attempted to be made-that nr. GrlsW0id hhd sought
the marriage with respondent from pecuniaTy motives
he would say that after her deseItiOn-uP"n which
uround the divorce Obtained--Mr q. went to
South Carolina, and, by frPart"s deed between
himself the respondent and James Cohen trustee,
he conveyed 10 Mrs. g. all bis interest in her estate,
real and personal bonds slaves, &c, To which, by the
laws Of South Carolina he was entitled. DR.. u.
finding that this marriage between BIN and Respondent
cond be- productive of heppinessthat their senti
ments and feelings were h0pclessly and irreeOnclabN
sptagonisic to each other-ln 1852 he became inter
ested in another lady. and made application to tls
Court for a divorce the most delicate of all grounds
the des.rti0n Of respondent. Mr.. C. offered 10 read
n letter from Mr.. Pettigrew. respondents COUNCIL AZ
Chnrle-ton setting forth the consent of respondent 70
a divorce 10 which Nr. Sherman objected
Mr. c. continued by stating that lbelant had Oh
tanned bis divorce, and had subsequ ,ntly married
another lady by whom he bad child; be- enlarged
rpon the terrible consequence 20 the present wife ana
her innocent offspring should the Court grant the re-
snondent's application. He dweled upon the hard
fate of besnt of his having been robbed Of the care
and custody of one of his children bvan evpade appi
cation Of res pondent to the Equity Court OF Chsrcton
and decree of that Court appointing her guardlan
of the child without his consent. lie spoke OF the
vail disaster and consequences
present wife and edet daughter; and stated that lie
was truly d" Il man OF sorO"s ana asqualhteu VIII
grief ~
tunate Gentleman that he was clergyman, man OF
refinement and education but, unluckilv, he hap
penod 10 be literary critic and in that capachy he
had given mortal ofiense 10 certain ladies', who are
now pursuing their victim; and he drew a VIVID PEE
ture of the consequences 10 him and bis unhappy
family should they succeed in carrying ou their desgn
MI {. said there were but two points in the ease
lst. Whether the respondents letter consentng 10
divorce was obtained by dnrcss aud I'd. Whether
iboant was citizen of this state at that time le3|
Mr.. C. then read the deposition u IIermon Hooker,
from which appears that about fourteen years ago
the libeant came to Philadelphia ana vote1. 4
Govt think" the deponent Gays she ever resided
" here siuea 1851 he has been hee oil ard on SINCE
" that time, inonth or two at tune" Nh Z. then
read letter address 10 himself by M. Eue, dated
july lS. 1854, and his answer and her reply.
Mr.. Sherman hoped he did not propose to offer
that very interesting correspondence in evidence.
Mr.. Cuyler replied that he merely wished the Court
10 understand the sentiments entertained this
ter by that lady. Mr.. Cuyer said hn had no further
testimony to offer, and would rest his case.
Mr. sherman then rose and said:
MAY 1T PLEASE TIE CoURT-On former occasion
had the honor of stating that this was application
on the mart of the respondent to yacate and set aside
a certain decree of divorce which was supposed to
have been entered in tins court some time In the June
tenn Of the wear 1882 and that application was
based upon the grounds that the sod decree had been
81. .d lxt ,. az Nhpllnt
est imposition upon this honorable Court.
Without stopping at that time tn dwell upon the lis
tory of the case and almos with comment upon the
character OF the respective parties, preferred leaving
the leyeopmont of this extraordinary domestic drama
TO the testimony which has now by both sides been
duly submitted to the consideration OF this Court; and
might add-whie regret ito the consideration OF
every one within the sound of my yolceto the con
Alteration of every member of this great Common
weath-to the consideration OF every thoughtful mind
of the teemng millions of our common country. say
Il Is to b. regretted, not from the simple fact OF
spreading this case any ease however unfortunate,
befre the ewes of the thinking worid-ior those only
owe darkness rather than light whose deeds are evil
but il is TO be regretted and deeply that IN the annals
Of enlightened Chrstendom there can be found such
case to spread upon its pages. That any maitland es
pccialy such mana literary mana man OF schol-
arly piotensions-a ciitic-s Christinn-and doctor
Of divinity at that il claimed by him and not dc
piCd by his learned cOunsel-shnuld have come into
this court or into any court, under sgch circumstan-
cos, Ia astonishing; and were not clearly shown by
evidence of the most exalted character would ln-
deed seem like romantic fable of oriental origin,
too improbable for the widest fancy and too Disgrace
ful for the most meagre gmmcrngs ct tho most Oh
tuse morality.
Without enteripg into minute history Of the early
ifc.and career OF this hbeant, It viii b. sufficient,
perhaps to call or attention for moment To bis pre-
yaiing wcaknessI might say-coDstitutional inirnl-
y-bis usual and uniform tendency TO color, oNagge-
rate and to misrepresent facs-so much 70 that hls
own mother declares that she had more trouble with
If,,Ers NIL b.P Of
never knew wheR 10 believe what he said. Many
others eninently qualified to judge, corTcborsc this
phase of libclant's character.
In the month of March, 1887, at the City OF New
York, the libelant married Mis- Searcs, an etimable
lady and devoted wife, with whom he lived until her
death The results Of this union were two daughters
Emily and Caroline. shall pass over the few succeed
ing year in silence.
CITY of Philadelphia, with her aIts from Charlie
;. c., was visiting lady OF accomplished manner:
and ample fortune. The Ibeant became acquainted
with this lady, and impoftuned he's TO marry him, stat
inc 10 her at the time that there impcdiments
in the way Of marriage; that his two daughters had
each $4,000 settled upon them, and that he had
$50 900 in his own right that a. this ladys health was
delicate and her constitution too feeble 10 endure the
severity OF the northern climate in the Winters If she
preferred she should live South during the cOntnu-
ance of their marriage. Such were some Of the prom
iSes that induced this lady 10 accompany the Oe8nt
TO Newly ork and where, on the 10th day Of Augu OF
that wear, they privately married in hotel OF
that city, The secrecy Of the marriage; the shame
les treatment to which she subjected by him
when she had become his wife and in his power, and
the attendant circumstances, doubtless too rosh in
the recollection of the Court 10 require comment from
me- Shortly atterho marriage the parties leave New
York fot Philadelphia whore they rcsusin few weeks
but in such equivocal relationship 10 elicit general
remark from the acquaintance of both paffics-so
much 80 that many doubted whether they had been
married or not. Hc then sends bi- wife home 10
CharlC s;on, alone with her auntspretendng tha. bis
business affair Of such nature that he cannot
accompany them; be a'~o graciouly informs his wife