New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-03-22

husband for leaving him
A. Yes; my husband sought other society, not re-
spectacle, of both
Witness continued-He went TO see frail women, so
was tod that was the reason, suppose, why left
bin; his failure to support me was one reason; L
thought il best 10 leave him; his going into bad soc
ETY., think Twas one Of the causes; old say that his
failure 10 support me was the reason why left him.
but did mt want TO speak Of it, do mt think said the
only reason do Mt think said that the only reason
left him ~as because he could not get anything 10 do
The questioning at this point very severe.
We mutually separated, without any cause; don't
tn nix said that bis failure ID support me was canss;
did MT gay the women were canse bus did say that
the complaints heard about his going 10 see then wac
csuse; filed bill for divorce in the Circuit Court
of St. Louis on the ground Of adul cry and deseron;
am not about the deserton; 1t was great while
ago, in 1852.
Mai Wright said that the record was the best proof
Of that.
Judge Reber sustained the Objectionable writing
must be produced.
Witness, contiDuedIf charged in the bill tina. Ds
vid Seamen deserted me- after we had mutually agreed
TO separate, it is in the bill; obtained divorce;
don't remember the particular period; all remember
is that got tho divorces ] am sure desertion was
charged.
Q. Did You charge him with adultery end deserton
after agreeing with him TO 1--we apart
A. Well can't give you the anewer.
q. Did your husband charge you with inidsli.y
A. j don't know.
Witness, continued-went by the name OF Mary
Seamen in Charleston and was not called Misc Mary
CaEstaDe; Mr.. Denny sometimes called me that name,
speaking of me TO his laborers and in that way some
OF the neighbors got 10 calling me by II.
Mr. Lakeland proposed TO read the original bill of
divorce TO refresh the memory Of the witness. Mrs..
Seamen acknowledged her signature thereto.
The following is The complaint sho WI to the witnsss
Mary sesmen agt David c. ssasn 10 the Cied Jourt Of
st. Louie County, petii,n for dvsgee April tern, 1889
Plaintiff and petitions the Court TO be forever divorced
fro the defendant all Obligations betw them nmat
inory ex.pg Plaintiff siAss that defends married her
the City Of NewYok In the State Of NowHork time
IN the year I5e That from the time Of The mise the plain.
eff and defendant lived together and wife for about four
year when desposn, her husband without any wholly
abandoned her and s Der TO the mercy aud charity the world
and her any support returned
herr and the sad petione plaintiff In The premises fur,
Their the honorable Court that curing ali the time which
shs lived with defendant aer marriage, tour yss) she
always faithful truthful and In AL respects 10 her marriage
eontisc lib him. conducted hersek sfe should DO Wheh
or he was sickness health aud gave him any
proyocston desert her ~ Aforesaid She thereore charges
st ma David O. beamsn with wfu and nnwaErantabe de-
ssrlon for period OF time soremenoned that he has done
"a without has rstprned 70 her Will support
ar means OF support and that during thu time OF their marriage
ls bls besS sne 10 guilty " stalseD r'ss Ave" per-