New-York daily tribune., 1856-03-17
THE GRIsWOLD DIVORCE CASE.
COURT Or COMMON EpLEAe-PsnApILsBiA,H pL Mach J.
befsre Jus.ics THOMPSON.
srR ho1sos TO vicArE pIcREE OF Dr. .oRcf.


ssn affect Interests which nsy have pswI Up gp ~
s.rsp. may be involved We relieved h9weyer
from e the sympathy that msn r iss essee bat
a. - bo va, married 70 hbelsnt within few days
after e ALLEGED decree Of eyI,eIf & I fun 9o~eds Sst he was
,Se the husbsrd Of woman and by he further se
that tse ss, The object bean in ondesvonHs to
procure The divorce from her wss tha ne 'qsp. e %
and having hs tpQweds. she made no O
position Dat ssip, her Upon which bean rested his
was in fact and that shs sc9uesced IN the pro
S1e ssved him the impusioo which the evidence fully
us6e. Of having whe the iswo law naosna n o. one & we
q W dsys after the decree IN his favor was adehe en-
ir one yea-thus assuming the risk Of the confirms,
on o by the appellate tribunal But for the fact that the in
offspring of the last marriage might be affected oy de-
cson Of question presented the yPshies OF the Gaze
would be pretty evenly divided.
ent motion numerous that II s somewhst dacnt to
ASCERTAIN with e'on me es sounGr .O. wnio sys NE re-
70 be comprised within the two heads Of between the
psrties or Of freud and imposition upon the Court -
E was trenuou,ly urged the Of the respondent that
none Of The proceedings in the had been regular That the
cssSDss were carried on while the respondent kept in
That by this manner OF the case
the besnt had imposed upon the court ana o
% ,ops are not however sustained by the evidence
Will Iss been submitted Il appears clearly by the writ
ten ev5erce that the respondent had notice not only OF the
intended application o. the b eopy Of the libel
served upon heT and that relying on the CT hs
lice and permitted the cause 10 proceed . i might against
her further sPpe% % Sy the case ad prevented
G time any action of the Court removed b. her own de
clsstion mode in her own M % d n s W ne, -
Inc In this letter which before having been dscov
cred ~ sss ss 1s eotsned n the libel that So e the
elsnt satisfactory to herself st that her intention
- NOT 10 return that founded that
determination which still! continued leaving him at full liberty
Of
taken DGrte and submitted TO the Court subsequent
nerod certain other eyderce sdduced which, in
necton with the referred TO- and with the fact that
respondent had full opportunity 70 sse any defense thst
were Tested as would justify the further action has tended
to fns determination Of the case The many and gross
b,rges which are now made against the beant and which
the evidence upon this motion is a1duceJ TO snstaina
Of hch as well .nown By the resPondeHs % INT before heI de-
never beshed by The Court was permitted to act
nsoD Of fraudulent design 1t becomes then question Of
lions port whether under such circumstances Cou ought
hs mon the ground Of colluon which If existed
was party Of fraud, which she knew Of and declined TO
TO the alleged cousion it does not satisfactorily appear
that existed IN such form % cur d sc"s on mat @
adversely full notice TO the respondent She was required
stated in the fed and the truth Of the charge at
tempted be sustained by evidence Her lara that the
left elan his legal remedies not 10 be regarded
NOT 10 ac be said to collide with the party
suing he would not be listened to upon such suggestion
R,s NAV be without subiecng the party such
impustion So defense may be waived or proceeding
seauiesced in without any imPIopriety
her obtained by force and fraud and should be now
hv beg IL regard to it, It seems that the
letter containing the declaration referred 20 written at the
w the sPe esGSdent SRS she would WRITE the
This coercion and with allowance the
of the affection by her toward the belan daugh
ter certainly not sufficient TO Justify excuse the respond
thus stating what her assertions now made show
of this TRANSACTION s that since that peod her mind has
1Sn Os s he now sees Sns" thouh @ e1e
different medium. The affidavit Of the besnt should not be
The Justice pp5gTeN,y 5 ~ Of y PH MY wn1 Sy the ne gg s9
rary has allowed action 10 be taken by which the dearest
h'T oSn WI ns in order to call such action question.
Neither have been able discover any such gross and
peesed upon the respondent or upon the Court as has been
The edugs commenced by the ibean full
conceal them L may be that some formal equson or notice
strictly complied with but when was expressly com
hd 81 sT and he gave Hal admission certainly the charge of
fraud against her cannot be sustained Nor 1t perceived that
Court has been imposed upon by the bean as tar we
have been able action taken in the The
case the eant sustained by what appeared 20 the Court
be sde quaie testimony and the objection Of the of u
sion we granted rule the liberal show why d.
vorce shoud be granted Thus far perceive no eyi'
adequate testimony. But it h alleged that prior TO- the
supplemental libel filed by the beant of which the re-
spodeni had notice. and that additional testimony taken
supplemental libel brought to the consideration OF the
Court and the strange which exists s to the records
whether any action whatever had upon said supplemental
libel The charge contained in it the as that stated
original libel the testimony alleged to have been taken
addressed to the facts and circumstances
ceedng The supplemental libel whatever upon
the action of the Court it, indeed swas brought under
consideration of which entertain considerable doubt The
hng this paper without notice the respondent
did the haIse and produced no special seOn cannO'
The main ground however upou which we feel obliged 70
the fact of any divorce having been entered by the Court
There no entry Of such decree either upon the mnutebeok
in the show that such decree entered Whether the
papers originally filed and the testimony and exhibits, which
case submitted Court consideration would show
syhns in regard to the decree we are entirely unable say
which our records are kept those papers have disappeared from
Piled The Judges recollection which would enable
them speak the subject OF the decree further than the
them as sufficient to enle the belsnt to the usual rule TO
show why decree should not BE- granted 1t h fcoue
impossible 20 rely the recollection Of counsel for that
which records SILENT aud when find that
nothing our records to show that notice of the rule
to show ever served upon the respondent,
or advertised so as to give notice Of such rule without
which advertisement decree could be entered
without violation OF our rule OF court seems to as that the
rren nsres TO the granting OF decree entirely wanting
hen further appears that the rule referred 10 placed
upon TIE list Of motions be disposed OF In the usual manner
the doubt 10 the decree being made much increased that
that which dces lot appear that which does not exist We
informed by the testimony that the belant acted though
made ia his favor What that evidence been
informed nor have the OF asceTaning IL does not
appear by evidence that certificate Of decree
given by the Proboeotay such certificate obtained
upon what rwss founded In this absence Of all evidence
any proceeding beyond that which appears by record
compelled - decide that there suen evidence Of de-
cree OF divorce having been entered and coaseQ enty the
that which been shown to ext cannot
be sustained and the rule must he dismissed
that be not responsible for the absence 4 the Porer reeo
in this oI any defect in the entry proceedings
the occurred before he entered upon the duties his
office and does appear Lave been SUBJECT his supery
son control
The motion TO vtcate is, therefore refused.
Iron The decision of the Con being NJ Cnvler