New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-04-04
THE GRISWOLD DIVORCE CASE.
TO the Editor ef The ". y. Tyibsse


articles going the rounds Of the public papers, in which
the impression is given that this strange and unpar-
nleed persecution as it has been styled Is still un-
fnished-by citing portions only of the recent decs
ion Of the Court together with Dir. Cuylers remarks
On making lis motion to show why the record
should not be perfected that Dr. Griswods dearest
Interest," had at all times been involved in the pres
eryaton of the records Of this case and that he was
"hsppy in the conviction that by completing the records
from authenticated copies of the missing parts OF II
"hs strange and unparalleled persecution wa to be
concluded and the good fame and legal rights of hs
client perfectly vindicatod-as the counsel for the
respondent feel it n duty owe both TO her and To
he law-uphoding community, to submit, through
your columns the following statement Of facts for the
purpose Of correcting tue error, and to prevent the
repetition Of hagrant injustice to the party Tor whom
1appear. ..t
divorce which was supposed to Rave been entered 10
the Court 1T Philadelphia sometime IN the year lo32
The motion wGs based upon the grounds that the de-
cree Gl any) had been obtained by fraud against the
respondent, and BY imposition upon the Court.
The Court refused to grant our notion IN these
words
TIE main ground however upon which we feel obliged to
the any al dirorce hdriEg been e'ed bvhe Court
entry Of uch decree either upon the book or
uuon the Of the Court do the docket entries In
The show hat such decree entered Whether tbs
rule Of Court requires 10 be annexed thereto before the case Is
submitted to the Court for It's COZ sheraton would show any
thnR regard the decree entirely unable TO
By fatality incident perhaps 70 the manner in
the fee Of our er be vp
Piled And when find tina, there nothing upon our record
TO that notice the rule 70 how why decree of
divorce should not be granted served upon the
spondent advertised give notice of such rule oou
without violation Of or rule of Court. t
that the YyesnGris' 70 the 9ran9g o. decree are e.,rey
uarno When further appears that the rule referred TO
placed upon the list OF motions TO be disposed Of IL the usual
to sAIS that Th Si sSe nG hs Suy thai S
ban acted though he had in his possession some evidence
OF decree having made in his favor Whist that evidence
was be- informed have tho means Of a.
pertaining does not appear BY Sny erIdsnet aat eren GER
cde q decree rd' gtreH " ne Promeae,y '.9a
certificate obtained oho 1t Jonaded In tins sb'
ress Of record zee are compelled decide that there sui
erdnee decree Of d'rore hdrng Dee" entered and
consequently the motion to ysca,e that which has not been
shown exist cannot be sustained and the rule to 'seate
Mr.. Cuyiey's motion, which followed, and which
looked toward completion OF the distracted or
absent record is enhnenty calculated to mlslead the
untbipking, being in direct opposition 10 the solemn
decision of the Court which declares that the contents
Of me niissiag record "cdHH0t be S4Pp,'ef." lie
might as well have entered a rule to show cause why
bis clieI should not nhab the Moon-or do any other
impoesibiliy or attempt any other equal aosurdity
II should be borne in mind that "a far back as t1e year
1853. Mr.. Philips of Philadelphia, appealed in this
case on behalf Of the respondent to the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania. The Records were missing at that
time and could not be found after the most dlgent
and thorough search. The appeal was paralyzed
The hbeanf had married dPd,a and could the records
have been found he could not have felt perfectly easy
as 10 the consequences
Only one of two presumptions, then can reasonably
obtain-either, that the missing documents had die
appt AIRED through the agency OF those so vitality inter
etod in their suppression, or that there had actually
never been any divorce at all La 1883 the records
could not be found they be supplied at this late
day. The Court itself has answered the question
Ii goes further, and declares:
I'VE ind that nothing upon record to show that
1rsnted ra, erer ,erred upon n. rspoHdos Gdee,'ed
heh notice adroenent 40 d'ee could be ssssr,d
yyem.a,ios The granting decree are enfirsy can'HS
This tact then is forever settled. that there uds no
raid decree Of diC0rce ecer eHteTed, ana 10 td%'d
decree, decree al ALL
In giving the decision the President Judge also said
I'VE relieved however fron some Of The sympathy that
might Lave been this by the fact which
,e,m eabLitd BY the sridenee that the lady Miss Harriet
who va. mus 70 thI bse. s da
prsr,ovsy, aud A the a knon>dge naf he ,e1
Ant bis roo..of a. character ought from the
puiaOn which The eridenes fully stee' of having vAds
u bot has Ne uitha fec day. after the alleged de-
cree We, Isdes eSs s.s iSs a o ., the re-
s,unins the k Of the confirmation Of BY the appellate
tribunal"
No careful reader can fai to perceive that, among
other things the decision Of the Court has settled
very glazing propositions flrs nat Rgfas ". Gris
roiG ga. Htrer dicorced from he respondent; aud
him ruth full AH0rIedge that ne Gas then The hus-
" band Of another Uomdh.'
Il might be interesting to glance at some of the bear
iuss of thi. state Of things. Our criminal statute law
"a. elton = article ? chapter J. Part W. provides that
"L,ey petson having wife or husband living who shall
other persOn whether married or single kc shall
be sdjudsci guilty bsaDy AID upon eonvcuon shall be
sled b nIr,ohlent in the STATE Prson for term
&c, Gins i've y-aIH'
TIE nth section of the same article provides that:
IL any ned person ,hs knowingly marry the hus
band wife Of sLoho case ~ which such husband
would BE- punishable according 10 the foregoing
Iers0n SIou shall be impgisoJed State
shall be Eued than Eve
L.. or subject both such hB ssd In
the di.cietiS Of the Court"
SIC 10 Provides that IA indictment nav b. found
s,an.t any penon for second third other marriage Ia
The county which such peron ala. be aPreheoded aud
the Ike rroceed trial judgment and
had IN sueh county As the srene sa1 been committed
" therein
II is wen known that the hbelant succeeded in OBJ
tanning large cum of money several thousand dolarsl
fron the New. York and New Haven Railroad Com
psny for Injuries sustained at the Norwak catastrophe
by Mrs McCrels whom be was at that time living
with and claimed az hls wife. The consequences of
that transaction ore susceptible of new interpreta.
ton viewed by the gh shed upon by this recent de-
cison of the Court a. Philadelphia.
Now as TO this strange and unparalleled persecu-
Son is but due To the respondent 10 cay that she
bears malice or hatred - her heart toward this
ibtliant. That che has suffered long and grevousy
al bis bands and almost without murmer, has been
abuDdantly shown by this recent, and IN her mofy-
ing ard Painful trial she would have borne oil Ia
sierce. She sought for peace but was driven to wsr
until sbe felt that there were degrees N wrong over
which the mantle OF Christian charity its, had never