New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-07-02

he went On 10 let his house Ffldhy ne c"nsu"na
the agreement to let the house oatufuay hu hocrco
At the Conclusion of Mr. Tiiden's argument CHARLES
Edwards alro addressed the Surrogate IN an elaborate
srgunspi. The following are the law points cited by
Mr.. Edwards:
So sosnu marriage account OF its an ocon.
sequences must be- made out by certain ana Conclusive proof
contract marriage in the presence Of priest give. no
more ladng than If it took place in presence Of
nsusn And the certificate Of the former has no legal value
unless particular provisions Of the statute are compisd WIN y
If the certificate Of marriage made out by Mr. Marvin had
been fund in the rG.'on % d., B%IaS ana y n n
fop then it might have amounted 70 Va uao ssohes,
n ". ne ns n IL, 81 ns s %. 90 n
possession In Mr. Cunnnsham destroy ' effect As asan. The
T. MIR Marvns incomplete private REGISTER Of M.rrrse'
evidence In Ensl.nd Parish sssi.teI may be
% these s within ;f md q @ IL de n
liking the entry (D~ OCT Bsrne. NJ. aud Rob $40 5ss)
But regular Register in England is no prot Of the aar
but the fact Of identity mus. be estab by Other eS1nes
Bs @ k MsSs.ad SG" o %nd Mr. Mar
wins Register. l39 " Greeniesf on Evidence OIL
vs. Even Though has. perhaps unfortunately laid
open the doo widely to l9o'ene.. OF form IN marriage
marriage every the mutual words of the Parte.
e form WIND and aS Up s Show @ s
FeiiSs - Howell: St. IT, Al Lyons: cas-. Eat. C.
3D. Dr.. a ssn %inn ss Wsad ~ i'D w. a'
bile the rule Of cvidsucs in Surrogate Court. still keep
m6ny Of the daughters Of Mrs Cunningham. such testimony
should be weighed with great caution and doubt ans from
lis having when their mother was sborns under
chsre having murdered the whom she claims 70 nave
been he, @ and spses woa naturally be- .IeS
by th'inPobaby in the present ana A"'' oon'y III the
All marriages attempted to be kept secret carry with them
pre,uu p'ion Of wrong or sinister motive
ha. been ~ one party up tho 10 'Ss % OF
ds'h and o tRs"s r encn viii sr. influence
decision against any 'uch claim OF marriage ~ manly i1 90
in tie ws 81 known Behy case h"''''A Evidence oil sue
Cohabstiop before alleged marriage takes away the
legal point Of contamination OF marriage by cohabtation-
10 contract Of marriage when contaminated, by what
sy be- called colabtaoD, must clearly made out
H. Even if observations which attributed to Burde are
contract OF marriage while evidence Of the remarks Of party
of Burd. should always be sentnzed and received with
ted justice and the most liable to sbuse especially
w SInsor 'Gsn B Rshh s. 40; DOW s Wi. shaw s5
Ma:sughlsn Dobson, cited in Blgh, N s. 4'9 and see
IL The mothers claim and the daughters explanation are in
consistent with witnesses scattered throughout the case The
moy the character of the mothers claim lar ito use the
words Of Beham from srudsns the trouble o. true an'~e
u.s. Where the person claiming as party to hs alleged con-
or in III, explanation suspicious circumstances taken
adversely than when the events involved are remote aud
both parties deceased liil BuTrc Brad 2l
"a Where evidence in tho nature OF abb evidence is
roush, to bear the character Of the wne: !. great rene
dy whether there has been abuse aud to TINS 10 Dc
added the and the seeming motive OF witnesses Is
Beuth
IS An sertd recent msrase should be susceptible of the
es:n proof Whs n IN s" SS b Court asS o nS ed
sustain claim founded upon all these Crapin vs. Public
Administrator Brad, 42h
M Aside from all tho duties rights and liberties attaching
married life proof marriage is important than proof OF
crime however high the grade Crime may be the act OF
time and there. an end jump a.hy the conclusion Of
marriage and crime may sncceed wsnonne'. be rampant ana
through law what obtained by the wictedne' OF their
mIntdis connection. ,,.. .,ov. ii. he
e1LaustDe the outset and aerwad only get in merely
aas a, n the Other SIDE Cumulative testimony which
creep. in after other eide has rested and which has sprung
might have been manufactured by collision to ut the
whole IsetGs a. with snpeG a VS. Rsdse
is Where evidence on question marriage marriage
csn error ought have controlling force cunningham
Cur mir CHAM, 2 Dow, SID
Gilbert Dean esq, i'll behalf of Mrs. Cunningham,
commenced his argument at O'Clock. He will con-
clude this morning.
A CASE OF CRIMINAL CONVERSATION.
THE WIFE CHARGED BY HER LOVER WITH CONSPIRACY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-sPEciAL TERM-JuLY -
Before Judge BRADY.
Jas. P. Cshil agt. Francis Heating.
Til. case has been alluded to before n our columns.
The defendant eloped with the plaintiff wife some
weeks ago, but the coup were arrested at fough-
keepse and the defendant brought to this city, aud
committed by Justice Osborn to the Tcnrbs, on
charge Of grand larceny preferred against him by the
plaintiff. This is suit to recover damages against
Heating for criminal conversation with Mrs. Cahill.
The defendant having been arrested and held in 81 W
bail the present motion was to discharge him thereou.
KEATISG's STORY.
Francis KenDg who is but Is years OF age, tells
his own story in affidavit. In September lo1o no
became clerk in Philip Smith grocery store ana
member of his household. There he made Tue ac-
quainapce of the lady, whom he understood TO De the
sister Of Mrs. Smith, and whom he never hearu caed
by any other name than Susannah V. McGlnnis5.
Every week she would come to the house. ana grad
ually suspectlDg that she was married te TWO
| became intimate walking out, ATTENDING concerts,
theaters and church together and sitting ee-a-ee III
the paror until late in the evening, the ay ahns
no objection. 80 ,.,, TIL,
husband and present plaintiff before he vent 10 CuDa
and used to him frequently after MS return ia ic
presence of Susannah. But the intimacy between hun
self and her continued unaba.ed she visiting nun 10
his chamber when he was SICK and having irequemt
confidential conversations IN the presen.e VI Gn'i
whom he supposed to be q rival lover. lie could not
regard Cal az husband since he never spoke of or
10 her As wife. and did not occupy the same apart
ment. with her. 49,
On the 10Th inst, Susannah came to the house of
deponents father at Manhattanvile, and, " after
good deal Of persuasion, prevailed upon deponent
80 elope with her to get married. In the course OF
debate as to the preprety OF clipping win her,
Susannah repeatedly assure deponept 'd. sue ua
'coud OF would be happy without the possession oi
/" deponent as her husband /" Heating sugsesleu
delay az he was unwell, but she would not consent
"to any delay, and inmated that she would die De-
fore She would return, and would die before she
would marry Cahl." C.,u
The affidavit ends with a statement that Cahlll
never cohabiied with his alleged wife, that tue pre-
tended marriage was fraud and that, when susan
ID. wiz tu