New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-06-07


more than the sum desired by Mrs. Is.
The answer goes ON assert that the defendant was
eompelled TO crop the acquaintance Of some OF her
friends and to form acquainted with other people,
in order 10 promote the mplanants Interests that he
has used the most gross and insulting language TO herr
kat he has refused to accompany her to the houses OF
their friends after they had accepted invitations 70 go
and sent her with servant, compelling her TO go, aRc
at other times, when he has gone with her, would
leave her at an early hour, to come home alone; and
that while he would treat her with Kindness In the
presence of the public, he would ilitreat ana abuse
her in private. -,
The defendant states she first became acquainted with
Stuart in 1856, at party given by 81. .. walker ana
Lady, at the fremont House, when she was introduced
TO him by her husband, VINO expressed great uengn'
making her acquaintance with the son OF tue idte
Robert Stuart of Dero and that until Stuart ana her
husband quarreled abou some business Inatters; ne
always spoke highly of Stuart and defended ms cnar-
acer from some reports injurious TO It, Sne tnen goes
on 10 recpituate several instances in which she suose
ouenty met Stuart always, however, IN the presence
of third parties, once when calling upon Mrs. StePhen
A. Douglas and alnost always when with her nus
band and AT his solicitation She then proceeds 10 re-
capitulae the circumstances of meeting AZ ioho"s'
On one occasion she sitting With Mr. stuart in
the parior when the door-bel rang She directeh'no
servant 20 deny her, but regretted aitrward " learn
that the caller was Mr.. Farnham friend OF her
husband and TO whom he was under Obligations. She
afterward apologzed to Mr.. Farnhan and rebuked the
servant at the time for not admitting hun. one OF
the criminal acts was charged as committed at THIS
induced 10 so, it subsequently, appeared by some
reports foot by the young lady from Little Fails
of whom her husband so fond aud to meet whom
at Saratoga he left his wife with a very I'LL child at
a watering place She became acquainted with the
BOYD family at her husbands Request, and she
acknowledged that an intimacy between ler
and Carlisle Boyd sprung up, ike that Win
Stuart, in which she accepted too much attention,
and in which presents given ard received. But
she der les that that intimacy was ever criminal.
When the suspicious of her husband were aro1sed,
she confessed precisely how far that intimacy had gone
but denied Indignantly, on being questioned, that
there had been anything criminal III its character Ana
finally, she declares that when at length she was
induced to make confession first orally ana then IN
writing Of having been guilty OF the crime lad 10 her
charge il by the threat that she should be turned
out of the house she did not confess bj the promise
that if she did, sentence should not be passed upon her
till the arrival OF her uncle Corning from
Albany; that at the time she was induced
she was socmnly promised that 1t should
not be used against her, and that she was at this time
so weakened by want of sleep and food, and by the
violence and treatment received from complainant,
that she morally or intellectually responsible
for what she did And she concludes by saying that
while she has been guilty of criminal intercourse
with any person whatever she was long before she
left Chicago end has ever since been conscious that
she had wronged and injured the complainant by re-
ceying without his knowledge attentions from gem
temen other than himself and having truly confessed
TO bin all such attentions and every circumstance con-
cere pentence for such wrong and injury she felt her
own mind relieved from the burden then upon 1t, and
she hoped and believed that through the advice counsel
and intervention of friends that they would again be
brought together; and she suspected that the
complainant had been decevng her, or that he had in,
duced her 10 sign the papers hereinbefore mentioned
for the purpose of publishing their contents 10 the
world in order TO effect her ruin and Disgrace, or that
he had mentioned their contents to any one until
she received the sad Valentines letter as herenbefore
mentioned.
CHICAGO June 9 1860
The excitement which marked the first developments
of the great divorce in this city, and which had in
some measure subsded burst out again in full flame
this morning upon the publication, in all the city papers
Except The Daily Herald the Administration organ,
whose propretors allow nothing of the kind to soil its
immaculate columns), Of the answer of Mary w.
Burch to the bill Of complaint filed in the Circuit Court
Of Tho county some jme ago by her husband Isaac
H. Burch, esq, praying for divorce ihe answer OF
Mrs. Burch was read by every one, and was the J
theme of universal comment and discussion. There
had existed in this community strong hope and desire
that the reply of Mrs. Burch 10 her husbands bill OF
complaint would contain reason for the supposi-
ton that she had not been guilty OF actual crime, ana
that her husband had been hurried into belief OF her
guilt, which would give way before the proofs which
she would adduce of her innocence With this hope .
and desire the answer was generally read but despite
it, the conclusion of almost every mind seems to have
weak and impotent and that, an attack upon her /
husband, it was, although skilfu and ingenious to the
last degree, thrown away almost entirely, upon this
community at least, where Mr.. Burch has lived 80
long, and where lie is universally esteemed and hon
ored and where all the circumstances of his early as
well as bis later life are known. 1t is useless TO deny
the fact that tie publication of Mrs. Burch answer |
has dsbeartened and saddened her friends here, who
still adhered TO belief in her innocence, and that II
has generally confirmed the community in the opinion
that MIR. Burch was deeply and terribly wronsed by /
her.
In addition TO the answer, which | sent yOu yester |
day, and which appeared this morning, Mrs. Buch also
filed the annexed petition for change OF Venue. fou
will observe that the application is based upon two
grounds
FIRST That the Hon. George Manierre Judge of /
the Circuit Court s preudced in favor OF the com
planant Mr. Burch, that the defendant, Mrs. Burch,
cannot have fair trial before him.
Second That the complainant, Burch, has 5ueh an /
influence over the minds of the inhabitants OF this |
county, that she cannot have fair trial here under any
Judge.
Thus, Mrs. Burch and her counsel confess that the
people Of Chicago and Cook County, amid whom Mr.. /
Bqrch has lived for twenty years have already pre-
Judged the in his favor. What stronger proof OF
the high and spotess character of the man can be adj
yanced than this
Judge Manerre, who is thus alleged to be so pre-
JUDGED in favor of Mr. Burch to be unable TO SIT
impartaly upon a trial in which he is party, is
brother OF Senator Manierre of State He has sat
upon the bench Of the Circuit Court for more than ten
years and is known throughout the State as Judge
Whose official, well private integrity, is above |
suspicion. We believe this is the only instance since
he has been Judge in which change Of venue was /
asked for from beneath his jurisdiction, such grounds.
The following is the petition of Mrs Bnreh for /
change of venue, and also copy Of the reolnder OF
Mr. Burch 10 the answer Of his wife:
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE.
In e Circuit Court Cook County Of the State Of Wino'