The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-10-20
SUIT AGAINST THE RKNICIA BOY.

Marine Court.

Marine Court.
Before Hon yudee kcC1thy.
Ocr ye.-C2WscS kalAGcs % JOHN O Hsess0s.-An q.
fort wse again made 10 bring on THIS cause nor riaa
Neither the Benicia Boy nor his whiom wife was N
court win be reoolscted thai The complaint alleges
that the defendant Justly indebted 70 plaintiff a. the
uree OF the westchoster Hcuse in the sum Of sloe %,
being the balance for board and lodging frnshed
Mrs Ada l. H. Keenan, - the wife Of the defendant 1t
his her instance and request between the months
December, 1860, and July, 1890
edge Of The pairti being trustee Of the westohes
Ter House and denies all and every other allegation In
the complaint. he therefore. denies that Ada l. Men
ken, Nias Keenan,, 10 his wife.
Mr. Fine Of the nrm Of MoCunn, swartwout Fine, q
the sitting Of the court applied 70 the Judge for I'D
jouInment Of the the 18th January Az counsel
for plaintiff not in court be would proceed with
the motion but would merely resd the affidavit which
John Heenan, the defendant. being duly sworn says
that he has fully and fairly stated the 10 this action
V O. Fine, his counsel, and that he has good and sub
stanal defence 10 the merits OF the case and 70 the
paint asghe ID advised by his counsel That he has also
disclosed to his counsel what be viii be able to prove BY
John ksckey, witness for the defendant the trial OF
this action he (Heensn) cannot safely proceed
with the trial without the benefit q the testimony OF
John hackey As be advised by his counsel that xacsey
this action and travelling through dieren. parts Of the
southern States and win not be back 70 New York before
able 10 procure the testimony or Mackey viii then
able 70 proceed with The trial. BE therefore asks for
postpooement until that time.
The Judge--rAke Jour order, cir.
After the lapse Of about ten minutes Mr. D. Taylor,
counsel FOR plaintiff entered the court and stated that IN
he absence adjournment had been made 10 ths matter
The J1dge asked II DEFENDANTS counsel would waive
that order.
Counsel replied in the Affirmative, and the motion
Mr. Taylor, AFTER reading defendants Adav, sail thst
the action was brought for masrss sned by the
order OF the defendant. &c did not see that this witness
n
paint The affidavit did not state what they intended
prove by this Witness who was now perhaps roaming
about the South. He Appreciated that II this motion
was granted il would tia first time N the history Of
this Court that adjournment granted such an
nssa BE- oos HUNDRED na fo to prove The
Affirmative In this ssuc, and Notwithstanding that
the DEFENDANT ws somewhat Of celebrated ted
the marriage between Mr. John Hesnan and this lady;
was granted might be renewed again the 18Th Of
January by the defendant saying that his witness hal
not turned up. Probably this witness was sporting
man. and (counsaD understood that the defen dant
lHeenan) had sent man, named Mackey, 70 the West
Of asen defence IN which, probably The defendant
Mr. Fine objected 70 counsel thus stating hear@y
Mr. Taylor argued that the afhdavt was insufficient
and he hoped that IL would gain publicity order that
the public might see upon what ground the case was
Judge MoCarthy-You shall not say anything Of that
kind here, sir WILL not allow any man TO say that
Mr. Fine-Ths case gained popularity before the 70.
turn even made, and cannot define by what
The Judge-You had better speak, sir on the motion.
Mr. Taylor 10 oounse)-l deny every imputation Of
Mr. Fine, in reply said that the motion was made M.
der the statute; the ordinary motion in such
case and the usua sdav which the statute required
had been presented TO the Court He commended
letter and spirit Of the statute the defendant, Mr.
COUNSEL cannot proceed 70 trial without benefit OF
the testimony which this absent witness would give Tho
and therefore, the other side could not say that the de-
PENDANT had sent the witness away 70 delay the trial
The counsel Mr raylor) had said that Il would be an
anomaly the motion we're granted, but he (hr Fine)
contended that would be far greater II IL
refused under the provisions Of the statute which gave
defendant that right. II q matter which recon
mended itself TO the discretion Of the Court, and such
cases The statute gave absolute right 70 the Judge to i'd
iouru. He would stale what he expected 70 prove,
. defendant was bound 70 disclose his defence,
Or why the Cou, should require him 70 show his hands
highest importance TO the defendant He would observe
that Mr. Heenan did not require the publicity to which
the counsel bad alluded He had had sufficient POPULAR
ty, which counsel well know. He would compare this
case 70 spreading OAK, TO which small vine creep
He (r. Fns) had never employed reporters 70 herald
around the proceedings in this case or
The Judge-There Ia sason sir, for you to refer
10 that here Speak 70 the motion.
Mr. Tayior-I never employed a reporter know OF no
reporter one thing know the defendant vii not claim
make oath 10, that be Is not the lawful husband OF
this woman, although he gets his friends 70 say
Judge Mccarthy thought you were not going on
Mr. Fiue-n your Honor win indulge me, viii prove
that John Heenan known to the plaintiff by his own
(psntn y adn eou not 70 be the husband Of this very
fra woman. will prove that other men, with this
lady, eneredher own name at this same house West
chesser Rcuse) John Doe and lady and that they occu
pied q room, probably the same ~ Mr.. Heenan - nj.
d TINS nan. ialr woman. aaa that she
R.a her name entered upoa The 5oo Of hi, AMI other
houses the lady Of John Doe Richard Roe, or any
who might have money enough 70 pay for that particular
The JUDGE do mol see how tina, vii adet the ssue
In this case.
Mr. Fine-rhen let the plaintiff strike GU! everything
from his complaint about marriage.
Mr.. Taylor Aid ne would slipulae 10 waive On the
trial al allegations OF the marriage the parties, and all
liability OF that kind growing out Of any marital relations
between tho parties he bal witness ia court who
would prove that Mr. Hseua, 10 the westchester
House and selected the rooms himself
Mr.. Fine said that he would also prove that the pan
never expected TO receive tbs amount from Heenaa and
that be would loox 70 . Mr. Bryant for IT,
Mr. Taylor said Mr. BryAat was In court. and ready 70
be exAuinsd on that point.
Mr. Fine agan repeated wha. he could prove with rsie
me Court held ,ha, me testimony woud be
ADD Irrelevant and the witness was presen, such ies
The Judge ,hsn made order the following Effect.
motion having been made oy The counsel Tor the
January, 1861, the atAvit Of Tie absence Of mate
rial witness for the defendant Now, after hearing
p for the respective parties for and In opposition said
motion and defendants counsel stating under the dl.
rccton OF the Corrt what the defendant win be able TO
sse and p1 sss os o@ The
paint and waive The trial hereof an allegations Of The
marriage OF said defendant (Heenan) with q woman
named and described In the complaint herein Ada I.
n. Keenan,, aad all liability Of that nature kind and de-
scrpiiou Of the defendant growing out Of any marital
lations OF the defendant with the said woman
Ordered that said motion be, and The hereby
the above conditions and ssi ,uatlon and agree
denied, but without prejudice 70 renewal 90 further
anldavita
me win not probably be reached bsre the 30.
vtmbcr term.
PERSONAL IntslItgence
Gereral Watkins. Of England; Rev. Dr. A0oForomoy
and wife, Of Baltimore; s Anthony, Of Philadelphia,
A Lac I'm I-nInm