New-York daily tribune., 1856-02-27
THE GRIswoLD DIVORCE CASE
~oIpT ~ COMMON ILrAS FOR rHg CITY AND
nN,Y or PHiIADtP PHI A-0sxssAL TEas.
FGs- 70. is4
APPLICATION TO sKr AsIpRA DECREE or DIvesca

Tie Ioss-5elayed case Of the Rev: Ruias w. 0r.-
wolA ID. D.. sgt. Charlotte A., his wiie, ve Nssy
.achrd on the argument hst at late hosr ssasys
David Pc al Brown, in behalf OF the respondest lm
Griswol51 moved that Samuel sherman OF Nsv-issn
be a6mitted in this Court a. his asoc<te-oosess
spd ths, le be now permitted to open the Co
wthsts rding the ateness Of the hour Mr. y.
sisted, had been in waiting at this Court tor ssyssM
days, and that he was now anxious 70 retara 70 New
York.
Theodore L. Cuyier on part ofthe lbeant sad 10 dl0
not wish oppose the motion bat he hoped the ssss
would not be pressed to-day he Oh god 10 eevp
town in the afternoon and be desired TO be prsssss q
every stage Of The proceedings.
Sherman wsud he subjected were entitled 10 ssssits
alton and the Court would be willing, on theI part ~
continue the Session to late hour for The aoconnsda
ton OF counsel.
.ideration, said: May it please your Honors, tAs =
an appcation to vacate and set aside certain -
cree OF divorce which was suppo.ed-l say suppose
for there is existing record OF the isce-tc 49,
he.p entered in this Court some time IN the Juns
Term OF 1852. Our application Is based upon ~
o,ouuls that the said decree was obtained oy -
fraud of the hbelant and by the groesest imposRse
uron this Honorable Court.
NJ. sherman here sketohed q history OF the ssss
and commented at some length upon the irrsgsarity
of the proceedings. He said the subpoena ssssa
on the 25tb March, ls5s returnabe on the sSth Jsee
then next at which time the libel was fledthst No
libel alleged that the respondent in the month ~
March, 1916, bad wifully and msliciousy dssertsa
and absented herself from tho habitatloa Of hbsaae
without any just and reasonable cause, and that -
"psnbted in such dese1ion for the time Of two yeesg
and upward and still doth continue to absent hsrsc8
" from said hbelant that said allegation utterly
without foundation in faH-tbst il wozld be sheuu
that said hbeant and respondent lived together -
man and wife at agreed intervals for upward Of avo
years after the alleged deserton-that at the time the
libel was ed shortly aterward the lbelant
tuslly engaged to be married again, and thai tAs
celebration OF the proposed marriage was repeatedly
POSTPONED notwithstanding the brides guets we're -
actual attendance and every preparation me4Q
on account Of the unexpected delays in obtaining hh
decree Of divorce; that almost immediately upoa
Lbelants obtaining certificate Of the decree, and
without waiting the usual and proper time to ascertain
whether an appeal would be taken he fastened iate
new marriage the respondent meanwhile utterly ignsr-
ant of any OF these proceedings until day she ao
dentaly in newspaper the marriage Of her hus-
band to another woman. Her astonshmeAt can bs
better imagined than expressed. She at inquired
into the facts entered her solemn protest against tho
entire proceedings, and appealed from the decres@
Mr. Phillips Of this city entered the appeal in the No
preme Court Of this State; but when the appeal was -
have been heard all at discovered that 81
the papers and the records Of the proceeding had mys
eiousy disappeared from the archives Of the Pothoa
otary, and trace of them could be found after VI
most diigent search. The appeal was psrslysed, -
the Court above could entertain nc appeal from any
decree without record of the proceedings upon whioh
it was founded was duly before that Court.
Mr.. Phillips here made an explanation Of the courSs
fully approved Of the present course the case had -
sumed.
Mr. sherman said he would leave the further deveg-
OImer Of this remarkable to the testimony which
would be submitted to the Court. lie proposed W
enter into comment upon the character Of the re-
spectve parties, further than that he deemed Il In
duty at this stage of the proceedings 10 observe tha
the respondent was a highly respectable, deicatsT
bred kind, gentle, iDoilensye, sensitive, aocompshsA
and most esimabe lady as large circle OF acqu.iss-
ances both North and South would cheerfully testifyl
but much abused and injured
Mr. Sherman handed his paper-boOk to the Cossts
and proposed to submit the original affidavit Of The
respondent upon which Iule to show cause why The
ecree should not b. set aside, granted In Jne.
le54 and duly served upon the libeant
| MIR. Cuyler okected TO the reading any part Of -
| er pdrte affidavit.
Mr.. Brown hoped the objection would not be insisted
upon, the affidavit was merely condensed stase-
ment Of facts, which were fully sustained by the veA
luminous testimony in the Commission, which must be
| received.
Mr. Sherman said that out of delicacy 10 the feelings
of the party for whom be appeared certain portions q
the affidavit would not DO read, but he intended -
submit the omitted portions TO the private Of No
Court. He then proceeded to read ~ follows:
THE AFFIDAVIT.
IState of South Carolina, Disfrict and Cay az
Chari.tos "-Chsrote A. Grswold Of said city bsns ~.
deposes and ssys-That about the roth dee e
August, A. ID. lsi5 in he City, County and stae of hsw.
hat tho said Raias w deponsst lived eohaSsd -
getr sId wife in the cities Of New York. Pmsdoph
six years or hesss and that dspoasn, ~ e
ouS Of and would still have continued TO live with the sa8
dat hs said Ruiu w bad perfect knOwisdss bus tiai =.
whsi ndDs the said knowledge Of the i wnsne. ana -
aOresd the said Rufus W. while at tho City of Chshssss
ses sss sbasd srs.y ely snd .s, s1a s
and refused to Live with deponsbt
Aaf s Ss S R 10: s s
eeeny IO.t very dear and mcs, her only male relative "a
hote that by marrying with the said Ruas W.. s6s wssN
hereby .ecS' w 20 herself hind friend and Protector, ls..
n e wsS Of their %s1ss ana s. q asP.nsnr: hs.
stood and proposed BY the said E asfs to aspeas.s
rage. that the two asashto" ei he said Reiu. W.
hat be bad thirty thousand dollar. exclusively in bic own n
not word Of which true although aeposnt bssyed
City Hotel and that the said Rufus W. opposing ponenss
S Ia Sroc"or Of he ho 70 know M nor .o
b. Imt dePoDent 70 mention tho fsct 10 any OF hs en1s
:esI@s ms1sse d.ponsni and said aas. W len Ter Phs
derha where be became much Involved In debt that n
SSS no. % 5 s ]
and heI sg, s:'s for the south without ham, .a1 thai =
days before Christmas Of the yes, i've daes
@ :s. s sns s ...a:a .esS s 81. s:
". replied that he Immediately Phnsdsiphi,
sG SL '%s s' s H. De . Ss ws1
tli1k Of yoa and your conduct toward msf
If you viii let have $50 will remain with you. Ahor
getting possession Of the said money hs ssd R1fus W. ~.
a Va. 1s Is s s1s
way when relative Of deponent requested bum 70 lnaks svss
herself The property Of dcponent Ne a tint fefsas - -
do bur ~ last succeeded In inducing him -
depoDebts property 10 hersel the said ksen
.ettnR r upou danghtef aud taking thoussaA
10 himself the Spring Of lsB let Charleston for PkusAs
yhis saying dspontnt should rsss kindly ~
ere 70 i've with you' On the following June DO Gar
esrczeLt bIn North. without sssdirg her asy
money Deponert len Oisrestos the l VI July for Pks~
dspLis They occupied Josess Hotel, when
ssd ss w. tfrsisd deponent IN wanton shameless ssl
cruel
three years that deponen, lived with aid Rufus W. ~
vie she did not sys sne dsy Of perfect health. spseas