New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-01-12

| SOB hr hc INES Collcno, nerchants- Betsy Dsr-
sp, The uter Of this ri'ne-s oonoborates his stats
| merL John c. He'd shows that Brown commenced
~,Ikirg for him about tbe 10Th Of Septem Der 1870
ard Ysrfes the date by a. eotIy In bis books. lie
slso trpreess s,rcDg lmprsss sion that Browa carried
| 6oods from It's store TO Mr.. Weeds for Mrs. Bissk
| after the 10th OF Scptembet.
IL there any mode OF recorcitng this apparent esa
ft Of testimony Sme Of the witre sses must b. nis-
taken a. TO time ard ds,ee frOm tho letters e,hb-
tied by Mr. and Mrs. Waldo, IL would TO he eie~
that Mrs Back visit at their house SootlAad
IS aie 90 Oct ~, lSi9; aud from Mr.. Grsys meme
rda il sppeais she leit New YOIk Tor Scotland 90
| the seth Of August, lS49. Mrs. Waldo testhes that
Mrs Black psid Ter four visits st Scotland since lSi7
srd il s possb hat tie krcta sud circumstances u
ore ot these vis,s may have been confoundei With
those Of arc her; but sii If confidence 10 be placed
| upon the msraofsnda of Mr.. GRAY, Mrs. Black mast
either have yisied Scotland twice ia the Summcr suA
Fall Of 1919 or hsve inside pro'rac'ed stay at that
place rem the 2ls Of August % the l2th OF October
IT, however the visit hlch comin need On The 2.t a
August took place in 1898 instead OF lSi9 the dill
| Gully might be solved This would harmonic witt
tie fact stated by Mr Cray that he speot week At
Mr.. Wees in August and whea he len brought bose
his mother and sister with him; while. on the othS
haIe Mr. Wed takes notice Of this Il, and slsS
stsiee that the mcthtS eft his residence In the Spdos
| or Sumner OF 1879 still in opposition 90 this ny
pothtss we have Mr.. Grsy's ehri,s in his ash book.
dated In 1872 and the general purpot Of the evidence
of Mr. Weed ard Mr.. aud Ms. Nsdo Is to the durs-
liz this visit the sickness OF Mis- Black, and the
yea Of the occurrence. In view q the testimony VI
iBn,Nu and Z, lend, n would have been more sis-
factory haa Mrs Weed ard the ply stefan who attended
Mrs Black ut Beleville been ex ahmed. 1t pess-
ure 10 ire that my view Of The law does not compel
c, cuscn he question of fact involved in the tesa
moDy Of these Witnesses. no reason Tor doubtnS
the good faith and veiaciy OF any one OF them and
believe that whatever difference exists mas arsen hoo
estly frtm nisiske
Tire follos ing propositions appear 10 me- conclusive
az 10 TIE bncrg obga CT the decree OF divorce
upon MIs. Rebtccs Black;
The record Is presumptive evidence Of Jurisdictions
h. iyk nj al
tribunal has exceeded Us authority. undertaken to
exercise il where il might not be lawfully exerte. The
doctrine of our Courts upon this point expressed IN
Shumway vs., Stllman, I Cowen 2f2; Wendell, IA:
Every presumption Is in favor of the jurisdiction u
tie Court The record is ptna tdcte evidence OF Il,
q and viii be held conclusive until clearly and explicitly
Approved The result OF this rule IT, that the defend
ant must dkptOve every mode Of lswtal service N
process rpust she clearly, explicitly and aiiimatyey,
that there Syas Lawful service. The mad of tho
Court must net 10 ei, 10 doeot upon ns pGia' tners
weight Of eydt nee rs shall avail 10 eyerturn the
oppospg proof and impugE NE presumption u the
truth Of the record. -
of the suit Or divorce, a resident VI State ~
New. jersey. She had been living there over ycN.
not longer, occupied furnished apartmoats, and had
tktie b X, aud rmaDent place Of abode. Mr.. Weed
staies that she L in July August with the intention
Of not returning But change of residence does not
rt st IN mere intention The dOmcle can be altered only
by a conjunction of the tact with the intention. lix
yisit TO Scotland was certainly only for temporary
purpose ard not with the desgn OF making her abode
at tlat place. Her establishment at Belevle was not
broken up; her furniture was not removed until at%
her return rem Connecticut and q domcile In Nev-
York Was not acquired before that period AZ q res-
De and citizen Of New Jersey she was amensble tSl
laws ard bourd by their provisions relative TO coa
siructive service Of process.
g. BY the statute of Now Jersey subpoena TO sppear
ard answer Jay be served on the defendant personally,
or by leaving copy thereof at the defendants
centre avs prior Ia s return. III Dix, p. 90 sec
The Sheriff is required TO sign the return, and on tho
subpoena being returned served, the cause procceis
III Dix p. 81 Is, p SIP, sec. 49, That an effort
made to serve this process appears FOO.
MIR. Weeds statement, that person called
for that purpose and exhibited be subpens
10 hin. IL Is true be- also states that copy
was left at that or any other lime but he only
give bis knowledge and hearsay that point and
there may have been copy service without his knowi-
edge. He Was ct the only person about the prem'es
He knew the Sheriff, and says The peLson woo called
with the subpoena was not the Sheriff The return
on the writ " served is In the Sherihs own hand
writing. An entry in bis own writing was made n
his book charging the seTNice, return aud mileage,
under date of the 10Th of September 1919 IL wn
proved that whenever process was served by tho
general deputies, their names appeared on the TO
,urn sud vi en- by special deputies their auth witty
Vas indoIsed the writ. The return then a. made
to the Court is assertion on the part Of the Sheriff
that be made the service himself Tho character OF
that officer 10 shown TO have be,n high AID un IN
peachable II thu refore there personal service
OF the subptns the presumption in favor OF service
by leaving scopy at the Usual place oil abode not
cspTOyed.
ith Ar matter of proof the return OF the officer Ia
ihef evidence OF facts alleged IN H. and II cannot be
impe ached colarerally Though untrue. II can 10 im
pu gned OILY in action for false return thu
Indictment of the officer, al application to tho
Court issuing the process made by party interest
ed IN tho csuse. Avrll vs.. Sheriff OF War~ick,
New and NJ 81. Gy6ord VI. Wooogate, II Eat, 29!.
Anon Lott. 81. GOubotys De CrOux, 3Tyr 9O6)
The case of Putnam Va. Mann Is Wendell, 20lj in tho
Supeue Court of this State illustrates IN the strongest
N an ner the extent TO which this doctrine will
carried. There the plaintiff who was sOnstabs, hal
returned 10 a justice that be had duly served thu
defendant with process at his own suit when be bad
not judgment was entered, and the defendant to his
swprise arrested in execution, without even hsv
ing been notified a the Of tue suit 10
an action brought by the defendant AZ sinst the con
stable aud the justice, TIE Court neid THAI tho
return was conclusive and could not be cola,eraiy
( Ia NV Judgment am bound 10 hold under al
fhcse circumsaI that there Is sufficient proof IN
II 9 case valid constructive notice 10 tbs doiondsst
Of tie Institution Of the suit tor diVoroo; that
even il the sberids return could be nPeaoh-
Cd It has no. bttn done, and IL heie
any hyFOlbesis consistent with tbe integrity %
IT. Sberifs return and the validity Of ths re-
cord that bypotbesis must be distinctly rsfutsd-
Service by leaving copy al the usual place OF abode
/, not only n with the return Of the officer bat
is not Leeatiyed with any cearness. 1t might have
oocuned without hsyiog been brought hons to ,ss
knoyl.Sge 6f Mr.. Weed. 1tere was no motive fW
ccKceslment ground for sppiehending any opposi-
Ton, and the process was VA fact eKhiolted u MI
Wed To suDpOse q ylO.ation o! GUY on be part
If lie glef sCUl1 under such circumstances, require
evidence 50 comLkie and stringent a. would abs Fussg
exclude any soiuon consistent with his Innocence ana
integrity
Mr., Black by The decree Of divorce 10 view Of tho
doubted Truth she had Loiice Ia fact Oh tbs etssaoe
Of the suit she bad voluntarily abandoned her mas
b,Ld and lived separately from him Tor t~eye years.
SIZE Vas vel aware that be was anxious Tor dvoros,
II abe would not return TO bic bone that an aitsDps