New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-02-26
DIVORCE IN PRNNYLyANIa.

DIVORCE IN PENNstLSANts.
We have heretofore Iefrsited from speaking Of
nost remarkable case Of matrimonial iDfefci'y and
difficulty occurring il tie City of Bfotherly Love;
but the whole matter beirg now before the public,
through the action and mainly in the language Of
til psrtie. interested, we have concluded that all
msy row. without scrupie, be transferred to our
columns, and it accordingly apPesrs herewith But
few words Of explanation seem necessary.
Mr. Horace B Fry, respectable broker, was
married last Sumner 20 Miss Emily L. Gngy,
y daughter Of Mr. John GTigg, retired bookseller
all Of Philadelphia. Nr. Grgg is understOoi 10 be
wealthy; Mr. Fry 10 moderate circumstances, bu.
us.mbarrsssed, sn1 doing well The lady hsd no
property in her oEn right, butwasy young and beau.
tiful. The engagement Was deemed fl and hap
py one, and was made with the entire appreciation
Of the lady's parents. The Acquaintance va. not q
recent one; the marriage was understood 70 be ore
bssed Oh affection purely, AID, judging superficial
~, none ever seemed more likely 10 result.
in the lasting happiness Of the parties.
They were married az the house Of the bride :
hiher, whence they i'm nedlately set out on we'd
ding tour, which terminated at West Point where
they remained some two weeks when circum-
stances were brought 10 the knowledge Of NJ.
Fry which impelled hin 10 Insist on sn immediate
return to Pbilsdelplis. A correspondence eusued
between the lady aud cadet whore Acquaintance
she had made at West Point which in;ted or az
srsvated a difference between the husband and
wife, which ended in the abrupt withdrawal Of the
LADY from her husbands to her fathers residence,
ard tie termination Of al smicsbe intercourse be-
tween NJ and Mrs. Fry, whose married life had
lasted little less than month. Mrs. I. thereupon
prays the Legislature of Pennsylvania, TO grant her
divorce, alleging that her case is peoulisr, snd
not one that could be maintained in a Court Of
Justice, though rhe charges Mr.. Fry With mani
festations Of ungo7ernsble temper, threats of yio
lence, acts Of hsrshness, &c, during their re-
variable honeymoon, which, if su5staltiated,
would prove him either insane or a demon. Mr..
Fly, in bis answer, soeDnly aud calmly denies
these sllegatops except that (be sdmit) in 8
single instance he was provoked by his wife to use
8 rude expression, for which lie ininedistely asked
(aud obtsined) her pardon. He protests against
sDy action BY the Legislature in the premises, in
sistng that he alone is the injured party, AID that
the Gaze is one Of conflicting statements If fact,
which can only be properly gifted bya Court of
law, to which be purposes in due time to sppesL
We believe DO legislative action has yet been
taken on this most extraordinary csse, 50 that we
,hall offend 10 just pride in rejoicing that we live
in State where none such could haze arisen.
Faulty as NeWYork legislation may be, it hiss not,
within our recollection, undertaken to grant 8
special divorce, and We trust it never msy. Nor
viii be believe unless we should be compelled 10,
that any Legislature would graft one on such a
,tste of faots-or rather, such a conflict Of alega
tions-a. 10 exhibited in the documents here Nth
pTesented