The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-11-14

about getting divorce and could not live with the
defendant and that after the divorce obtained the
plaintiff expressed her satisfaction at the divorce In
addition TO these adavts the attorney who conducted
the proceedings has given detailed statement of the
interviews between him and the plaintiff, and hearing
her repeated inquiries the progress OF the suit her
anxiety To obtain the divorce and utterly denying the
statements set up by the plaintiff to the motives which
actuated her in commencing the proceedings He denies
having heard at that time OF the insanity but that
afterwards spoken OF by her and by Ludcus for the
purpose Of having him put in an asylum, so that no
could not trouble her after the divorce obtained
There facts in this which make II difficult to
suppose that the plaintiff throughout acting solely
under the idea that what she did was intended TO cure
the insanity OF the defendant. The quarres between
them previously the subsequent arrangements 70 the
propety OF the divorce the conveyance of lots to her
by the defendant and the division OF the furniture are
all inconsistent with the statement that she had no
knowledge Of the divorce until after she employed
another counsel examine into the proceedings There
IL no doubt OF her having received conveyance of the
lots she admits having sold one Of them nor OF the
division OF the furniture as the inventory Of what she
to have is produced signed by her The provision
made for her from the defendants property appears
to have been done voluntarily after the judgment
Of divorce granted and II the defendants statements
true appears tohave been literally made. The re-
suit Of my examination of these adavits is that the
plaintiff has not made out such case as to justify the
setting aside Of this judgment Tho material allegations
denied by the defeudants witnesses and the weight
OF the evidence against her The motion to set aside
Judgment OF divorce should be granted except
where the grounds on which the motion IS made are
clearly established IL surely should not DO allowed
where the statements In favor Of the motion are posi-
should hesitate on this application. viz: that since
the divorce the defendant has AGAIN married do not
consider him entitled any favor this ground, be-
he not released under the laws OF this State
TO authorize him again to enter into another mar
riage relation; but the second wife, who may have
married ignorant OF the previous transactions OF her hus
band should be protected from the consequences to her
self and children IL she have any, which would follow
from vacating the original Decree except upon clear and
uncontradcted proof OF facts warrant IT, From the
statements made the arguments of this motion con-
cude the object Of the plaintiff Is rather to obtain fur
fhar pavn tOfrn a
him to return to her her husband There have been
where the alimony has been increased after judg
ment Whether that be done in the present case.
where alimony asked for in the judgment, and
where the plaintiff has accepted voluntary provision
for her after the divorce granted Is not neces
sary to inquire the adavits the part OF the
defendant show the payment of large portion Of all the
property he had at the time The fact that his present
wife has property is for giving the plaintiff ad-
ditional alimony do not however, intend to dispose
of that question on this motion 1t is not asked for in
the notice of motion and further explanations will be
necessary before such application be granted In
the disposition OF this motion, shall leave the plaintiff
the right make such motion such further proof as
she may be advised This motion is denied.