New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-03-06

bo5se in the City of NswYork 50 Is 70 enable Inn 70
have literary soiree every week. The re- aest 80.
being complied with, be then tells hs VIZ n.s e..
ania be could &c, divorce tfom hes ior sis
AMI he viii DO t. because che ha. the power % con
troll her aunts. II is not enough that az his exp
even 10 his omnibus hreis betrayed oy nis We, pSI
she must compel her aunts 70 buy him house. OF ie
VIII be divorced
On tho ID dav of March 1852. we find him IN PLls-
delnbio soemnly swearing that d" On the 2c.h Jay OF
tugust Is45 be was bound IN matr'rDo1y ana nS',
"ried 10 Charlotte A. Myers this respondent' ara
"that fr1m and after that time unt some tMe "a t.s
month of March, 1916, he lived and cohabfed with
"her rs her husband" &c. And snhonga W .ne
claws Of God and their mutual VOWS and ian pnghleu
"to each other, they are bound 70 mar unnoi M
stsncv and regard which ought 70 be nsepafao.e
from th. married state, yet so - tnat me -a,a
Charlotte A. the parties being doni.ea n the %
I, "a deserted and asssnted bersef from this II
b..n 5r N. term Of Two upward ands doth con-
time 10 asssnt from him In this connection the Cont
viii be.r IN mind eoncusivey shown o the SSea "a
evidence executed Ia the city OF Chsfieoh % ne -
IN ay May the parties living together ss man an
wife n that cay ana go Soar Hoot. hat ,sss rae.
continued to tosether At agreed intervals mp g some
iiop therefore absolutely untrue and wfay .ase Not
witEaBdng tho bcAnt then sesrs th4 The e,s sst io
ssd s yit tho best OF his know eis an oee
ana ma Kim md The aid Charlotte A. rthe purpose
eSo from escb ohor bu. in sincerity aid TRUTH
Inc eApses mentioned In said libel" To efae this aiela-
ton 40 relates 10 hm simply rees 70 ne "~a'e
deed offered in evidence BY hi' own counsel =, ,.,c.
Before submitting my points vii merely - 80 ir
i sppes that he fled hi. libel tbs 2jh day Of Ms5a;
1852; the same day .abpen. L sued 20 . S iS n
moning her 10 sppes this Court 20 answer me oei O. '
18th dsy Of June then neat il spears that eN0ts 80
C. Together with intcTossodes are hed and "a ns i,s
of July 1882 (being three months and twenty days sh @
sabrchl was l.sucd The belants snidssit hed n ms
Count. There no appear e4lort %. ~ "a 81, 80 +.e
spondent there any notice Syen NJ OF hs n-s 81 49,
seem there no mention male of there being any public non
pursuant the requirements OF the a.nes d IN e e. %
Il
record may here he permitted 70 observe thAt
from the that they hal determined ~ dfss me %
rroun o the irregularities and detects OF the procednss
On tine I'd day OF October ls52 appears thst heis vs.
n s%fS 6 e is Bp. sny SieS given
bad she aDy notice in fact nor was mere new
issued under the Proceednzs nor was sh teqIe~ -
pear did she know OF any new rroeeen peaans ~,
Court nor docs i apear from ', D IsG0a s'S NEW sa
There certainly was none under he old. L., 3. .
win suggest however TINT there w,s any decree aus
have been entered about the I'D day OF Dtcembe S1 pre-
sumo this the fast OF she libesnts marriage sool' mo
the fact Of the said msegs having been pat on wo SCI
times notwithstanding The brdo suess we're lnV,.ea o. D'
peced DELAYS in pro ung this divorce from respondent
continue With the record rom ne 1 s; .le 81
Supreme Court entered by Mr. Phillips in behalf o. ne re-
nal h il all at once discovered that all thc ap and dcnens
have nysierou-y disappeared from e ohce or we
ary and that it Is utterly beyood me power oI 'nt y
10 restore them after he most gent &c en- no app Al -
psayzede fraud prncticed nr9n this Co' ana upon '1e
H. The sprI Of IA the b rel WIS snbusl
and requested by the respondent 70 the IS mae "
remedy e end that make an application Of ms nature
% this very Court then called upon my DISTINGUISHED $50
cate submitted TO him my of the OF which be ir
approved, and the 9th day OF june 1884, T'le va
not be re,eindcd Two days socwal the re served
upon the beant and affidavit Of dne service lretuInea %
this Court On the 18th day Of March sj the Commssion
was sued City OF Newfork and returned 70 TINS
facts established by this CATION the es'e row f'ry
pesei.d the consideration Of this tribunal and wlu po-
! coed TO sulnuit my points to the Court
Frat Thss FOCAL COnrits jnsetSn is limited 70 Iis
no original jurisdiction The responenno appearance
entered by her and therefore could acquire except
pens only this but beyond the limits
this Commonwealth sDd pqrpors to have boo 81 IN Jig
,snf State This Cont could compel the service OF m pro-
by the Sheriff Of Charleston nor could IL punish thAt oe.
.e1 SdSe " a be nsseht Of % must first be- shown
that the person making the return was tho a"iu ocer ho
officer he fully complied with the requirements of this Court
The subpoena issued three months and twenty days before
sry appearance by respondent TO cure the defects the libel
second Tie belanf was NOT citizen of Pennsy yana At
the libel hed lie therefore mad no right either IN
particle Of evidence show that he CITIZEN OF ever hal
been, excepting that his friend Herman Hooker .e,ss l
voted in this ctybut he distinctly that he don't
think beant resided here since 1901 but has beon bore
- of and on, since that time, month az time
The sda respondent eorrobora;ed b. tho testimony Of
Ms Elc show. eocusiyoy that he was not citizen OF this
and that besnt himself positively stated that be con
sdred himself resident Of Charleston, C though s bus
ne,s ehairs required great deal OF h tune "a nus
Court then had 10 jurisdiction over either OF ne paris or on .,
the subject matter me snt, hau M
the decree and DONE but for the imposition
end fraud upon this beant This defect in tho
Third: Iflibesnt had leen citizen Of Pennsylysnis A. that
time he could have fled his libel on the grounds Of de-er
ton by his wife, For shown by both parties That th9re "
I've separate and apart a. agreed intervals
and IN fact that was one Of The conditions pee ZEN 70
aon-the delesey OF the wies h9sih and her nanty 70
endure tie severity OF the Northern Nintersi this wa fairly
understood the time end fully acted upon by the parties 10
the Where there is mutual and agreed separation
party with serion bat neither coald avail in law which
shou all 'uberge, all double dc iing, all 'sreeng 70 lis
d.,eIon by the wife either scus consruetye IN the
month OF March lS IS So o2 snd pteeaeo ~ me ,s mo-
an descIion slesed u the lbe bolsni eaEno 20 beyond
the law, proedta .eesaduns aResato; ,.,.-
Iow: Ii the first second and third points did not obtain
counsel and By the Court that the original iGs
aud proceedings insufficient to grant divorce and to-
lbesnt equally at,l the amended and suppements
libel which the decree 0 sny must have been obtained
nglty from it, inception notice thereof having beer
given to the respondent nor is L pretended ina, she wa, re-
Implication, this libel, and i, and az psOcs sdns
founded thereon in void ob iE0 snd fall q
the ground without any validity whatever. ,
FDh On the principles Of law and Justice that rsle
vtates ell contracts and that pinit'ei TO taxi al
bound tnow for en0rania Leg esa,ai H."ae this DO
even thoush al the Courts IN Chistedon combined ne. pro
But is claimed that certain paper letter addressed
by respondent % tLs Court ia which she edts her aeeiior
coz divorce and that that fle valves all rregr
snyibins moe Nov how was hst lssr aimed
l. il not clearly ia evidence before your Honors that the ette
obtained BY dsss gqaids that il extoTsed-nsy
wrungon her BY the yest that dlgracee dc
| sTsded man
We viii back for 10 tie latter part OF ths
1851. Libcsnt then living with hs wife, this re
sroIdent lie tells her he viii be divorced from because
e cannot will not induce her 10 buy him house
the City Of Newiok; and he then sbandons her snd seu9Y
already reluctantly rslnqnsd bis claim hsE property
snd impatient being restrained expenditure OF he
which without this marriage he would have has
right wseVehe this city and for what
=.