The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-01-18
TDs Bride ~ An Hsur-A Runaway Maid
and . Runaway WIZ.
SUPREME COUnr-6PDCIAL TKEk.

ma y BG0R2V0X VWAE0 ~
sUPRKNI COUnT-6PDCIAL TKHM.
Before Hon Judge Sutherland.
JAN. 16-M ne Sater Of p&ttton Of Geo. Z. 1ayaw
for ne restoration Of Ms alleged ~ye, Emma A. Taylor
A writ Of habeas corpus was granted In this case, return
able to-day Al 8 O'Clock.
Ths return Of the mother Of the young lady (hrs. Mary
A. Wrsht) was read, denying that she had the custody Of
her daughter, or that she was restrained Of her liberty BY
her. She further states that she has not had tho said
Emma in her power or custody, or under her restraint, 81
any time subsequent TO the alleged marriage OF the petit
TONER viii her daughter, Emma, nor has she ever trans
ferred such custody or restraint TO any other person. And
the respondent, Mary A. Wright, further says thaa the
said EmmS ID her daughter, aud was 10 years OF age on
the 18th day Of December. 1857, and thai she 10 ignorant
whether the petitioner has been legally married TO Emma
on the evening Of the 9th Of January, in company with
deponent and her Son and Emma and the petitioner, and one
y, :. Ford who claimed 70 BE- = an attorney S at Jaw and =
from the corner Of Sixth avenue and Thirteenth street 70
Walack's theatre, in an omnibus; that they all got out Of
son and the petitioner entered the theatre together,
and this respondent supposed that Mr.. Ford and Emma
were following them that this respondent discovering INA,
one Of the company spoke 70 Taylor and asked him where
Emma stayed; that Taylor then replied che would 60 and
look for her, !" and immediately went out; that ~thercupon
Taylor proceeded TO the house Of q Mr.. Morel, at No. =
Ninth street, in the city Of New York, while Morel and all
his family were absent, there being there some person
participated in the affair herein detailed; that Emma md
VIM. S. Ford had gone to said house directly from the
theatre upon getting out Of the omnibus, and were IN
waiting there when Taylor arrived, and bad in
their company person claiming 10 ne
there from Brooklyn the day previous, and who had been
waiting IL the neighborhood Gas Taylor informed EmIna)
the day previously, and had received a fee OF hny d airs
for his services; that Emma therefore las she has in
formed this respondent requested Taylor TO defer the
marriage for six months; but Taylor declined, and Ar.
Emma that he himself had clandestnely married against
the wishes Of his parents, and urged her to consent to
marriage with Taylor; and thereupon hemming per,
Taylor man and wife; and Taylor Afterwards returned 70
the theatre in company with s~hegogue; and Ford and
Emma came back together TO the theatre; that this re-
spondept had no knowledge or suspicion Of the matters
Aforesaid until the Monday following; and that Emma re-
turned TO the house of this respondent on Saturday evening
the 9th of January, and Taylor came there also; this res
pondent further says, that on the 18th Of January inst En-
ma left her house O: her ownfree vii, without any restraint,
control, influence or authority exercised by this respond
ent or any other person acting on her behalf or sugges-
ton, and has not since returned; this respondent further
house, that she was very sorry for whatshe had done,
and was very anxious TO get beyond the reach OF Taylor,
and that she would never live with him under any cir
cumstances whatever; the respondent further says, that
she is informed and believes that petitioner has no money
or any means of livelihood, except a salary Of about $500,
while in the temporary employment of some merchants
who have failed in bu siness; and that she Is informed by
Emma, and verify believes, such alleged marriage has
never been this respondent further says
that she has not ut any time since said 9th day OF January
inst. exercised any control or authority over Emma n 2ny
way whatever, but, on the contrary, informed hel
fne W n n i nDeTty 10 q n II CDSS, anu 1nhs DIS D
spOpdent could not and would NOT exercise any restraint
over her, and that Emma replied mat she would not,
under any circumstances, live with Taylor, and nothing
has occurred al any time since TO change such liberty and
freedom from restraint and control Of any kind wbatse-
ever; and she is informed by Emma, and believes, that she
has avoided the petitioner through fear OF personal yio-
Ience. NARY A. WRIGHT.
Mr.. Sears read the traverse TO the return, which set
forth tha. the respondent has the said Lmma A. Taylor,
70 called IN the said writ, In her custody and under her
power and restraint, as he is informed and believes;
that the respondent had Emma in her power and Gus
,AA- 80 "a .sr~t ~ aa.na Stno pIoaottnp a. n
marriage alleged In his petition, and a. sverred therein;
that ~ 20 all other matters alleged IN the return be
has no knowledge or information suhicien, TO form q be
lief.
Alfred N. ~shegogoe being sworn, Mr.. seers offered to
prove the marriage certificate.
Mr.. Busted objected. The question was not rs TO the
marriage, but the restraint and custody OF the party.
The following Is a copy Of the marriage certiacase;@
EEw YoRK, Jan. o, 1858.
Ihe Is TO certify that |, Frederick Hemmine, n minister
of the Gospel, in accordance with the law OF the State OF
New York, lawfully united in marriage George Tracy Tay-
lor and Emma HRwley, at the house Of Mr.. T. ~Shegogue,
272 Ninth street, In this city, on this day and date-name-
ly, January the ninth, in the year Of our LORD one thou.
FREDERICK MIMI
Witness, AtfRKp N. SuGoccrs.
After argument, the offer 10 produce The marriage GER
tbeate in evidence was denied.
George Taylor, the petitioner and husband of the lady
q young man about % years OF age--was then called, but
own behalf on that side OF the case which he
has represented in his petition. II was an unaiterable
rule Of the common law, and was peculiarly applicable 10
the traverse 70 the return IN the present proceedings which
was a simple denial on information and belief OF what
is set forth on cath in the return TO the writ These
proceedings being merely statutory, counsel cohtended
that Mr. Taylor could not be permiued 20 be a witness.
He referred the Court to the o2d section Of the statute.
The Judge ruled that that section settled the question.
The petitioner had set out in his petition all that he was
supposed TO know, and he could not be further examined
viru wce. Exception taken)
Mr.. Sears said that was all the testimony he had 10 offer;
he had used every diligence 10 procure the testimony OF q
Mrs. Cameron, but they were unable 10 do so. He there
fore asked for an adjournment
Mr.. Busteed objected To an Adjournment
The Court desired to know what the counsel for the pei-
toner expected 10 prove by the witness.
Mr.. Sears said he expected to prove the facts set forth
in the petition
After some further opposition On the part OF Mr., Bustecd,
the Judg e granted an adjournment 10 Tuesday morning, at
ten O'Clock.
Mr.. Busted raid-And the tcars Of this weeping Adonis
arc 70 be staunched In the meantimel Uaughter)
The Court WAS deDsely crowded-tbe spectators being
principally young men about town.