The national Republican., 1862-01-29
Canterbury.

sensation in her beautiful ballads, and the corps
de ballet contains several Of the very best dan.
The Canterbury Iaiustrsls appear tomorrow
night.
Barney Divorce Case.
The following 10 revised copy Of the i'm.
portant decision of Judge Purcell in the long.
contested Barney divorce case:
Washington County, D. @.
John v. De Kraft, the next friend and re.
ls,ion Of the minor children OF Samuel Chase
Baaney, and Mary u. De Kraft, formerly Bar.
ney, now deceased. The above named John
W. De KRAFT fled bis petition some months
since In this court, praying that some Compe.
tent person should be appointed guardian to
uel c. Barney, was disqualified and unfit to act
as such, and offered rs evidence in support of
the charges, amongst other facts, a record duly
certified, purporting to be divorce granted
by tho district court Of Jasper county, and
1850, in favor Of the said Mary r. De Kraft
Barney against the said Samuel G. Barney, her
husband. The said Samuel G. Barney, in his
answer to the above petition, denies the ale.
cations in said petition, and insists that he 10
not disqualified from acting Ms guardian TO said
children, and has offered the evidence Of sew
eral witnesses In his favor, stating that he WAS
not, In their opinion, addicted to intemperance
Without special reference TO all the facts in
tuO huONb Couoos tuOto 10 ouvuSu tu0 SNlu
decree Of divorce Of the district Of Joseph
county, Iowa, ~ far rs this court has jurisdlc.
ton TO determine this case. The sentence
pronounced By the court granting the said do.
cree Of divorce was clear and emphatic.
II Is stated that 1t was court OF competent
Jurisdiction, that 1t had jurisdiction Of the par.
ties and of tho subject.matter, the law having
been fully complied with by publication, aud
that u notice had also, with copy Of the pc.
tition, been sent to the said Samuel Chase Bar.
ney's residence, and that he had been duly and
timely served with notice, as required by law,
that the charges in her petition, which were
proved, we're others than adultery, and that
the said defendant, Samuel Chase Barney, was
in default. That the said Mary 4. Do Kraft
Barney, born Mary u. De Kraft, was entitled
to divorce from the bonds Of matrimony from
Samuel Chase Barney. her said husband, to
whom she WAS married In the year ls47. The
said sentence further stated that the acts, con.
duct and character Of the said defendant, Sam'l
Chase Barney, had boen of such character AZ
to render him uDnt TO have the custody of the
minor children Of the said marriage, and that
mother during their minority. II the said court
of Iowa erred, this court has no power to give
him, the said Samuel Chase Barney, redress.
That his remedy 10 before another tribunal,
the regular appellate court:
The above decree cannot be mpeached or
inquired into COlaterally by this court accord.
ing to The authorities which are binding upon
1t, and that It Ia binding also on the said Sam Y
C. Barney until reversed. Raborg's admins.
traitors vs.. Hammond, I'd Harris and Gin, 40;
303; Demond vs.. Billingsea, I'd Harris and Gill,
?64; Hammond vs.. Ridgely, 9Th Harris and John.
bon, 2!5; Csmegys vs. the State of Maryland,
roth GIN and johnson. l73; House vs.. Wiles.
of Cooley, VS.. Bender, jth Cranch Circuit Court
Reports, $50. The 4th article Of the Constitu.
'tion Of the United States, section and tho acts
ofCongress Of the ?6th Of May, 1880, and March,
declares that full faith and credit shall be given
to all the Judicial acts rendered in the different
States.
Chief Justice Marshall held, in the case Of
dartmouth College VS.. Woodward, 4th Whea.
ton, 621, that the Legislatures OF the different
States hal The right to legslste on the subject
Of divorces. That the Constitution of the Uni.
ted States, which prohibits the States from
passing laws impairing the obligation of con.
tracts, was never under under stocd 10 restrict
the general right Of the Legislature to legislats
on the subject of divorces. Those acts enable
some tribunal not to impair marriage COG.
tract, but to liberate one Of the parties be.
cause il has been broken by the other. There
much cOnsideratiOn-Edwar DeKraft, the
father Of said Mary DeKrsft Barney, deceased
the mother Of the above children, BY whom the
entire estate belonging now to the said minor
that no husband Of his daughter should control
any part Of tho estate so devised. II appearS
from satisfactory evidence that Dr.. Harvey
Lindsey has been the collector and agent for
the property in question, belonging t9>said mi
undoubtedly better acquainted WIN the value
income, and condition of the game than any
untFied person, and that he 1 known in this
community to be a gentlemxn Of high integri
.ty. And the court, In the exercise OF Its disore
tIon, believes him, underA1l circumstances, \
proper person person to be t5s guardian Of the said
pr. Hsryey Lindslsy is hereby appointed
guardian OF Samuel 9. Barney, jr., Edward d
Rsrney, Hebe q. Barney, and Clay yonia Barney
the minor children, above referred to; who
must enter into bond with sur reties to be ap
sand dollarsi and the court further orders thai
all the proper COSTS of this suit be paid out o.
January Is, 1862.
Mr.. Davidge. counsel for Mr.. Barney, took NJ
appeal from the decision Of the court. J.
DR.. Lindsey appeared in court, and wa,
duly qualified as guardian for the said minol
Mr.. John W. De Kraft, James Mcguire
Thomas J. Fisher, and Gilbert N. Wight were
DR.. Lindsley's sureties.
Criminal Court.
Trial Of CONNER Of murder. The trial O
Albert Contner for murder was commenced
yesterday. He 10 charged with the murder o
\ teamster, John Bremline, In Prather's Alley
on the 9th Of December last by shoot ng with I
the s10g phrymsn were chosen
Francis Riley. John W. Rdenour, Henry G
Kleiber, Samuel r. Sylvester, Thomas Lundy
William P. Doniphan. John Tretler, JOSEPH
FOllansbee, George 8. NOyes, Patrick Crowley
Watkins Tolson, and Henry Martin.
by Mr.. Darlington, when Mr.. King commenced
the testimony on the part Of the prosecu