New-York daily tribune., 1858-08-16
sCrkENE CoUgr-cH,NsE.s-Als u-ssG,e. yass.
rHr woonHorsr DIVORCE c,sx.

rRE wOonHOUSY DIVORCE c,sY.
M.iis '. K. wocdhoa,e ss,. psa.e wooesos-s
This was an application made BY Mrs. Wooisouss
to set aside decree Of divorce which she alleges w
obtained BY her husband By fraud. The particulars Il
the case were given few weeks ago Before tie
motion vss argued, Mr.. Porter, plaintiffs cOuuse, a.
fertd g. bar to the proceedings a disccntausacs
signed by both parties. The defendant, hcwsver, By
her siiisvt states tha, the pspcr signed by hx
while rdsr tie influence Of fear and exct smeut aai
that she sigred it supporg it to be suother pspsr
The Judge concluded to hear the original motion, and
then decide on the motion for discontinusncs. TAs
p 'sItf then offered 10 opposition the aii fsvit 0
Dsrie NJ Porter, plaintiff counsel, who alleges that
come two dsys before tee exprstion of the s 10 a.
swer in the divorce case, be was waited upon by
adv, wto stated that she was Mrs. Woodbouss, cad
uQur.d Of deponent whether said proceedings would
be sde public or not, that deponent informed ter ot
he psusl course taken divorce cases She theo Ia
CURED whether plaintiff to be married or not, aaa
ta'ed she could che would prevent any such mar
isge he further sege, that after the decree OF di-
vorce had been granted the same lsdy called upon
ceporent and told him that she had been influenced
by her relatives to commence proceedings -
open the decree that while under tue inhuence oil
great excitement she signed some papers before :
MIR. Hale which she wished to retract, aud wanted
TO know il she had the right 20 tear her name trow
said papers The aflidsvits of Mr. Newton and Ohicer
Webb showed the service o. the summons upon Tao
defendant and her acknowledging that she knew tss
import of such paper. The afiidsvt of Mr.. Hunter
set forth that within the last five weeks the defendant
called upon him and stated thA she had been induced
nv her relatives to make atidavIts IN New York aAd
ha. she ws told that the papers were not to Do useA
n sry proceedings to open the divorce, ard that che
did not with any such proceedings commenced - she
had been compelled TO trump up story TO please hsr
rels,iors who were pre- udiced against the plaintiff;
the affidavit corroboraed that Of Mr.. Porter aud ass
showed that Hunter WAS present when the discontnu
ance was signed and that il was done at the spscid
request Of the defendant and in deponents presence
The affidavit OF Mr.. WoOdhouse alleges thAt the di.
vorce had been obtained through the misconduct a.
ors and that the dscontnusnce of these proceedings
signed at defendants request the plaintiff also
denies generally every allegation made bY the defend
ant and that be has been since married.
The Judge referred the mstter TO ex.Judge micheu
to take testimony and report the facts.
TIE application for the confirmation OF the report u
regard TO the Second improvement was adjourn
ed to the 18th inst.
Philip Livingston at. Jeremiah Brennan
The defendant in this case, who was porter 10 the
public store No. So Greenwich street. arrested
some days since on a charge Of embezzlement OF
liquors, cigars, &c., preferred by the plaintiff, and
WAS held to bail in the sum Of 81 900. Mr. Jas. n.
Sbesban moved to vacate the order Of arrest, or
modify tie bail. the grounds that the afidsvits
which the order Of arrest was granted were detective
inssmuch "a that damages were laid at 81 900, but
that the plaintiff did not show any specific value the
property alleged to have been taken, and that
sprvleged usage for porters TO take what liquors snd
ogsrs we're necessary for their own use on the
prem lees On hesring council for plaintiff and defend
s1t the Comt ordered the bail 10 be reduced to 90
liberty h. the defendant to 10 vacate the order
of arrest sfiidavits.