The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-10-10
Application te J, yaeate q Decree
On Account Of FraIid.c
The Daughter Of a German
Noble the Plaintiff.
Alleged Collision Between a Lawyer
and the Husband.
INTERESTING AFFIDAVITS OF THE PARTIES.
DC. &c. &C.
Supreme COurt-Cham beSs.
Before Judge Ingraham.

u Before Judge Ingraham.
Dor o-Ga6rieaa Saeltxer. Vs. Alexander Saelter-
ny the papers In this II appears that divorce was
decreed between the parties in September, 1854 The
plaintiff appears by her affidavit published below, is
the daughter Of who rewarded with the order
OF nobility for hrs merits and the defendant Is
architect engaged in this city for many years The
plaintiff applies to the court for the vacation Of the
decree divorce the ground that II obtained by
fraudulent means. through cunning trick of the de-
fendan, the adrot management OF certain lawyer
To up the story in few words the lady claims that
she induced to take part in fictitious divorce suit
with the view to curing her husband of species of
insanity with which he represented to be afflicted
on the subject Of separation from his wife, that she
imagined real suit was intended, and that she
greatly surprised to learn afterwards that bono de
decree Of divorce had been entered contrary to her
pecatons and wishes In her AFFIDAVIT presented to the
court to-day she sets forth that her life with the de-
PENDANT had been very unhappy that he accused her Of
inhdety with almost every man she in contact
with, and that occasion he seized her by the
throat and bruised her severely At his request she
swears, she went with him to see lawyer named
Charles T. Wetmorc, TO whom she explained her do
nestle troubles; that the said Wemore at subsequent
interviews with her told her that her husband had been
consulting with him for than two years respecting
the best mode Of getting rid Of his wife, that he
monomanac the subject, and that the best plan to
pursue woald be to seem to crafty his whims ana
fancies Her affidavit continues as follows:
she stated to said Wcimoro how the defendant de-
sired her to procure divorce, and how violently he
threatened her in respect TO IT, but that she did not
wish TO procure divorce that thcre ground for
other thnn the mania Of the defendant and she
considered that disease she did not deem herself
the contrary be reason why she should watch over
the health and happiness OF the defendant closely,
and make greater efforts for his recovery that the best
method to aid in the recovery of the defendant would
be TO give seeming assent to his desire for divorce,
and thus TO use his precise expression "fool him in
the matter by taking such steps as would induce HIM 10
believe a real divorce intendedn when he would
speedily change his and to desire divorce
las the said Wetmorc airned) that the defendant told
said Wenore that there was ground whatever for
charge OF infdety against her husband, the said de-
PENDANT TO which he rephed that that was mmateria,
was said at that and subsequent interviews Of like
import between said wctmore and Mr. Ludicus to wit:
that the complaint not to be used for tho purpose OF
any action in fact for divorce but merely for the pur
pose Of seeming acqicsccnce in the wishes Of said de-
PENDANT and by pretended action to dispe the mania
cal deiuson of the defendant If 1t possible do
that when she 80 signed 1t both the said Wcmore and
the deponen understood that to be the sole object and
purp0rt OF the papers and II she had conceived any
thought that 1t would be used for the purpose Of
mencing an action she would not have signed it, tho
said Wetmore very well knew that the said defendant
after the entry OF the decree In this action, frequently
visited this deponen sometimes often three times
day: this deponent being then unaware Of said decree
being in existence had additional reason believe that
such dccreee had been entered and from the FIRE.
quency OF such visits which continued down to tho time
surprise then was great to learn she recently did
that divorce, regular and legal in FORM had been
procured by said Wetmore upon the papers
signed by the deponent; that she did not learn
this fact until she had employed counsel short time
pcions being aroused by hearing that the defendant
living with another his wife, and hearing that
he had repeatedly declared that he legally divorced
from the doponent that soon after she had signed the
complaint in this action, and not exceeding three
weeks tho defendant called her and exhibited to her
what purported TO be a divorce; but deponent still be-
more'S gave little heed and belief t. supposing il
70 be some paper Mr. wetmore had given him to aid in
the friendly deception for the defendants benefit but
on learning that the def ndant with his
lawful vito, she became alarmed and employed counsel
70 investigate the matter fully that the counsel did
investigate tho matter and recently reported her that
decree had been encrod in this action the 9th day
Of september 1884, declaring the marriage between the
dsponent and the defendant TO be absolutely dissolved
which decree is apparently regular and in due form.
And the deponent further says that she much
prisod to learn OF the entry OF such decree; thai
she never knew nor suspected that the defend
ant Had been guilty OF any misconduct which
would cnttle her to divorce, did she
know of the names of any witnesses who
could gvc thcr evidence OF such misconduct nor does
know the witnesses or either OF them whose names
arc mentioned as the within produced before tho referee
In this action; did she hear of Them 10
hcr knowledge or belief, before hearing through her
And Tho dsponcnt further states that had she been
really DESTROYS to procure divorce from tho defendant
signed obtain the same shc would also have prayed
the Court that the defendant be adudged and decrecd
repay 70 her all tho money and property advanced to
rim by her, " with lS42 when married, thcre
advanced about the Of six hundred Prussan thaers
In 1916 when her brother died. about Ave hundred to six
hundred thslcrS and in 1858 house In Germany be-
longing 10 her sister and herself was sold and half
the proceods paid to the defendant amounting 10 about
SIS 900, II which the defendant received onc-haIf or
about 81 300 These sums with interest she would have
oaimed should have been retarned 10 her. had she really
desired divorce, as well also competent and suit
cent sum as amony, 20 pay for her support and main
tenance In the rank and position In life which she had
been accustomed and which she entitled TO move
toned 10 associate with The best class Of society that
her father received the order Of nobility for his personal
mers; she became the wife of the defendants but here,
stranger In strange country, she Is comparatively
helpless, and although she s not altogether endcss
yet having but few friends and those only such her
husband introduced her, permitted her to be intro.
duccd TO- she has found great difficulty In supporting
herself since he has omitted TO provide for her support
and during tho last twelve months or Whereabouts she
has boon thrown entirely upon her resources for
support Ana deponcnt farther states that the only
property she has ever received from her husband
North Hoboken, and the Of about six hundred dol
lars In paper money That she sold OF said lots,
SAID 70 DO the most valuable among Shem. for the
sum OF one hundred aud ninety-nvc dollars and she
verify believes she would be unable TO sell the remaining
lots pro ont at any price, as they worthless until they
shall have been filled up being In swamp low ground
The defendant has been engaged In architecture and the
building business about twenty. three years past And
knowledge az to the income OF her said husband or
whence In derived except to the sum Of Ave thou
sand dollars In stocks bonds which she believes are
now In his possession under his control,
she has nevertheless been informed and verify believes
that he would diligently pursue his profession Of
architect he might and would quite sufficient to
mako n liberal allowance to the deponcnt, II he
had no other resource whence 10 derive the same.
This statement OF the Is corruborated BY the ain
davit OF Mr. Edward Ludc1s who further deposes that
he witness 70 the domestic quarels Of the parties
bong an intimate friend Of the family that the defend
ant occasion charged the plaintiff with tho vcs
abandonment of the marriage vow. And on another oc
cas0n the parlor Of BOARDING house. to which her
son had taken the plaintiff the defendant in the pres
OF Mrs Saeltzer, gave undoubted indication OF his
that what he had previously said OF his
vito wrong
rHR HUSBANDS SIDE OF THE STORY
Tho husband or course has version OF his domestic
difficulties and the divorce SUIT differing very much from
chat Of the VITO The following Is his aindavit:-
Alexander Saetxer, being duly sworn, says:-I and my
former wife lived happily together and about ten
years ago our differences became and ever after con-
during tho las ten years reatened get divorce and