New-York daily tribune., 1858-07-13
THE De RIVIERE SCANDAL.
MRS. BLoUYT APPEARS IN COURT.

AKA Miss BoULt on II wit OF hatets corpus directed
sesnst De Rivlsie Sid Mr Harcke proprietor Of the
Napoleon Hotel, OF Hoboken, and ordering them TO
produce the bo6iss q Mrs. srd Miss Bount in Co1rt,
were resumed ysst,rds7 mmbiug bef,re Mr.. Jns'ise
Ogden, et The Court House Of HudEOn Co.. y " Jer-
sey, at Bergen Hill.
But few yersons were in ATTENDANCE.
Mr B'oun, represented by j. Whiting a this
city Mr.. Ransom Of jersey CITY. Mr. VI ord sp-
peaTed for Mr.. Kviers, Mrs. Blunt aud Mr.. HuncSe.
Mre. BouDt arrived in caTisge about 10 O'Clock,
spd was INDICTED to the Jud,es Chambers, where
hs .DeG during tie pendency OF the proce sdng
Mr. Ransom taer read the oging exceptions TO
4 retuu OF Hr UU- cke tot wit Of hhbeas corpus
Feoek Bionr. ptiiionsr above named exce?;' 10
the made snd filed ~ the sid Joha HareEe
Por thst said John nuucse answered AID lated
In HE .sd ~hhsr pot tie ssl1 Mrs Emily j. Bola.
ssutdy bin foE The custody o. her husbind The sad Pc
ntDsr bis sIwer tha respect being sogsher eva,iv la
? Eo hs, John Hrncke hs no; answered and ss.e
i s stio srswsr whether DO, The ssd Mise Emily Boun
h' 10 this 'Ptet bers altogether e7ssve imPr
For the ssd John Hupct hes IN his said answer
swed - foih Hsehsr o. MT T. il be 20 *er poda'-
iioe bis in s e'pct being altogether eyssve np per
For that sd hn Hurke has net in is said answer
answered set forth wtehsr or ot h MS n b. oower %
oduce before the ac Jice the BODY OF he ssd s'. Emily
Bount bic slswe IN this respect bDg altogether e'a'i'e i'm
That he .d John Huncke hes not answered and fo,h
bis sd bnswer when the ssid Ms Emily Bouut and Miss
Emily BouLt 10 his ss1 house; how Ing the sad Miss
J..
power custody she willie there and whether not sbe
eid h. sad house with bis Inowetge consent by
n. effc,ons or p''f1s@er, ht' as ss~e' IL OIL t.
For the sad aud return ia In the particulars se
foi,h srG cver particulars essse imperfect and insult
For al Of which putcus the petitioner except. the said
fcien, and therefore prsys attachment b. issued ag'in
ssd John Hunc for contempt in thus eysdg the require
INT 'h' 0' 'he ''a Gls csepes1 Fs BLoUNT
Mr. Nulford said that Mr. Rsnsorn h sd stated, when
the return ss put il, they should traverse the re-
turn snd that sn hour after the meeting Of theCourt
Re (Mr. X ~ would give HIM copy Of the traverse.
lie hed rot seen Mr. X. Until this mornirg, and mss.
much as he (Mr NJ was entirely urprepered to meet
the p.iCDs without DotCs, he should AK post
ponement OF the hearing.
Mr. Ransom ssi1 they sl ould traverse the return,
but they CLAIM ed that the return shoud be made per-
feet fret. Il wss in Mr. Huncse's power to amend
the return now so that the exceptions would not ap
pv ard if the return rot designed to be evasye,
tie uencstiOn would show the fact.
TIE Ctu,t ssid that the proceeding by habeos cor
pus desgred to have decision a. coon "a posi-
BILE and delay might defeat the object. The exceptions
eta I'd that certain facts WI oh ought TO be IN the re-
turn net in, and the party might amend the re-
turn now if he desired.
Br. Mulford dd not Intimate whether be should
amend the return then or not.
Mr.. Rorsom then addressed The Court in support of
his exceptitns lie said tha' HuOcke denied that he
txercs5a corro over Mrs. Bourt snd her daughter,
but he did not Gerry tnati ~ haipp'hs lLeh ID MS
house. he did not prevent TIE hu.bsDd ard father,
who had tho nigh to legs control over Mrs. spd Miss
Blount from seeipg them. Again, though Huncke
denied that Miss Bount wss in his custody care aud
control be dio OF deny that be could proc her ss
che oieht be in the control of else where he
might get her did he Say that he rs no pexer 70
produce Mrs Blount And Miss Blount being
mir or ard in his house, it was to be eupposed " toe
abepee of proof tht Hurckc bad control OF ner then
and ths she left with his knowledge aid consent, 6nd
that she may hsve been placed in the custody OF some
one else who was under tie control Of Mr. Huncke
completely. In support of the exceptions, ar han-
som cteo the osse Cf Lacey in 10 J0bncon, 3}S
Mr MulfoId in reply contenced that the return was
as full an6 sxI loit could be expected unGe tLe GU
oumsiarcef. 1t appeared from the return Una, tne
party was the proprietor Of public house. and tlat
tte two persos named in tire writ were guests in ms
house, and that stl was ard that the other eit
two days before the writ was issued MI Huncke
de1 ia Of hs power control OF Mrs Blount was iui
snc explicit She being in bis hotel as boarder, he
could rot know anything about the fact Of this gene-
man being her husband, bat certainly the return set
forth the fact that she could come ana go when she
peased. The answer could not be more full thsn u
was relative to the custody of Mss Bount lie ssld
thst two days before the date of this wit ere lett ms
house and il would be goug far 70 suppose thst MI
Hurcke had under these circumstances put MISS Bouns
u, der tone persons custody over whom he had con-
troll as regards his power 10 produce Mrs Dlouat,
was well known that the proprietor OF hotel hed not
the power to produce b0aIder a. any time ana par
tculsry when he had stated that she was frte 10 go
ard come when she pleased. In the absence Of alleys
ton that MIR Hunoke had been party t9this transac
tion, IL could rot he required, when the deughter hsd
LETT two DAYS bsfore the witt had Issued, tnat he
should sse whether he had the power to produce the
daughter in Court. IDssmuch as the wit only re
Qued that he should produce the bodies u Mrs ana
Miss Blount, by him detained, and shos the cause
AID reason Of such detention, they could not 60
out OF that writ and require the tnrpluss'ge
of full statement of the tire when the dsugn'
Ter csme, with whom, uIder whose control she
cane how long she emsined, &C.
Mr.. Whiting said that they couended the return
was eyssiye, and designedly &C. Throughout the
return, not a word ssid about Capt. DE Ri-
viere. Ii was wToug idea that married woman
could become bosroer in public house without tne
cortelt Of the husbaId aud he who received her Wa.
emlty of wrong upon TIE husband snd society. II
she was there legally her husband was responsible.
If NOT and De Riviere WAS respotsibe then she was
there illegally. Huncke had ant cpatsd TINS SUIT, and
he'd spirited Miss BlOunt away, and now caue INTO
Court making simple response TO the suit, without
answering allegations contained IN tie pstltlcn Mod.
ern deCsions had held that if there were no physical
restrsrt but Tiers moral restrain. OF the party
the person sgsLst whom the writ was issued, vas
b0urd TO produce her,
Mr.. Mu!oId said, as regards the assertion tha. 10
answer ad bsep made to the alegatioos contained IN
the retiliou he has had opportunity 10 do SO, IS
there had been no copy OF the petition served upon
them.
Judge Ogden said that the writ of habess corpus
wss directed to de Rvere snd Huncke, and that ITS
object wss to enable the Judge a. Cbsmbers to deter
mine whether the nights oftne husband we're vios.ed
BY them or any other persoIs within ther control or
by the ccnnivanoe /, necessary that the party
to whom the writ issued shou ud fully answer all the
matters witch were connected with the alleged lie gs
detention Of the party who 10 be brought before
the Court in oideI that this right of the persons eslT
ing custody of the party might be sscertsined
Ihe return to the witt NUT rot be O
technical cre, whereby the party might sail 80
Close TO the wind that lie might technically save his
corscitnte END yet thereby keep the party who was
seeking relief frcm his object. The object OF the wn
was ~ ye To narsons VITO ere inn rnperlY restrared