The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-06-06
The Strong Divorce Case.


s0ss5.-Paer r. Strong ~ Aory E. Strong. -rhs ~as
an appeal from order made special term Of tho SUI
peror Court in December last requiring the plaintiff to
deliver to the defendant copies Of two letters writ
ten by the latter to third person Mrs BedeD and by
her delivered to the plaintiffs counsel Tho motion for
such order made in the pleadngs, the Of
Mrs. Bedel TO interrogsories commission, and pc
tition in the defendants name, but verified by her
brother, j. A. Stevens, Jr, in which veriacaon the
tents Of such petition stated to DO true OF his
knowledge except as TO matters stated therein upon
believes they there Absence OF the petitioner
(the defendant from the city OF New York. and igno
rance as to her place OF residence. were assigned
reasons for not verifying such petition by her
oath. Such motion opposed on affidavit Of the
plaintiff and also of one Of his counsel Murray Hoffman,
Esq admitting possession Of the letters The action
brought for absolute divorce from the defendant
Mrs bede'i was examined ON behalf OF the paintin by
commission, and, in To certain interrogatories
testified TO the contents Of certain letters received by her
from the defendant and by her DESTROYED, and states
that in them such defendant confessed her crminality
The letters In question we're not exhibited 10 such wit
ness such examination, either they their
contents proved by her. She only testified sending
them to the plaintiffs counsel The petition which
the application made alleges what the plaintiffs afi-
davit dcnies-namely that Mrs Bedell testdes to the
contents Of the letters in question. The petition also
states that the defendant has copies OF them and
therefore could not state with accuracy their contents.
The appeal argued in the February before Chief
Justice Robertson and Judges G0rvn and McCunn, and
decided the 9th Of May last The general term
ing and the following opinion was delivered by Judge
Robertson a
The order appealed from appears to have been based
upon the assumption or fact, principle and pre-
sumption OF law none of which, In my Judgment I've
sustained.
The fact assumed that the letters In question be-
longed series, which, of course. implies some con
necon with each other; whereas nothing OF the kind
appears anywhere In the before All the
Of \ connected correspondence having relation the
same subject may undoubtedly become evidence where
Que IL introduced; but such presuin pton could
In regard to friendly letters between intimate connec-
tons In the Of Ferguson against Hely no Jurist
\. > "a, February, No 1861 the motion granted
expressly upon the ground that the correspondence
entirety and the parts required TO be produced
tanned evidence in favor OF the defendant TO show
cison Of the contract sued upon There ~ pretence
in this except by surnise of counsel that the let
ters in question contain anything favorable to the de-
the defendant was entitled TO an inspection Of them he
Bile statement in them II is that such petition
that letters the defendant IL advised
counsel material and necessary for the defence Of the
defendant which consists OF denial of the alleg
Of the complaint bu the advice of counsel belief OF
party cannot be substituted for the Judgment OF the
Court upon the facts and circumstances showing the
cessity of the production which 10 De- spread before IT,
(McAlstcr Pond, Is Flow, 299 Packlin Edmund,
5, Il. ID. Smith, 539) The Court therefore, having
before them sufficient information Of the contents OF
such letters enable IL 10 decide that they would be
either prciudcial beneficial To either party evi.
dence ought compel their production the app
cation becomes thereby entirely fishing The order
appealed from should therefore, he reversed with costs