, 1865-11-28
THE HISTORY oF,THE CASE.


The case promises to be Of the most inter
stances upon which the applications for
divorce ore founded, but from the rcspecta-
bilfty and well-nown social standing Of the
parties connected With It. The suit Is what
Is sometimes famfliarly called "cross suit"
that is, both parties sue for decree Of d.
yorcc and the custody Of the children Of tho
marriage. From the following plcadIn4s and
issues the initfatorJ steps to the trial, rs we'll
a. from the opening remarks Of the plaintiffs
attorney, the reader will obtain a succinct
history Of the case.
The original complaint sets forth that On
the 18th Of May, 1853, Peter R. Strong. the
p]aintif was married to the defendant 51ary
E. Strong, then Mary E. Stevens, daughter Of
John A. Steyens., That after such marriage,
and until the discovery Of the adultery of the
plaintiff and defendant cohabitcd together rs
man and wife, and Ind issue Of the said mar
rInge three children, VIZ: one born In the
month Of April, In the year 1854; another
born In August, 1850, both female children,
and now living the third born October %,
1850, and who died OF the second day Of Jan
uary, 1s6o The defendant being charged
with adultery with Edward N. Strong, brother
to plaintiff, makes answer charging him
{p1alnts1) with infdelity to her, and BY an
order Of JudgeMoncrief, the following are set
tied a. the issues for trial:
!. AG9 sQE Qe4tuHa[E+ Since nET marriage Wild the
plainuf, and before the commencemsnt OF this
nction, committed adultery with Edwnrd n. Strong
4. Did The defendant IN this action 1uu1ai, ad1j.
1T wsth Is 9pe xn1 Td T. a. n sgE On Q, about the
Newton, Queens cog:ity, New York.
5. Did lhe raid defendant commit adultery with
one Edward y. Strong At Newton, Queens county,
NsT YeEs, Is9s, on other days in The eald month Of
!. Did the said defendant commit adultery With
one Ed"srd n. strong, At. Newton, Queens county,
New Yosk. On the several days or ca any day in Tie
5. Did the sid defendant commit adultery with
sasa Edward n. Strong at Nc:yton. Aforesaid, on
Or d9g de sna 1c qa;
9. Did the raid defendant commit ndnlte.y with
saId Edwnrd n: Strong on anY day between the
1s@, T Il house Il Tie ciy Of New II Yosk% % known =,
No. 20 East Twenty-arst street. in said city.
7; Did the soid defendant commit adultery with
Ju]y, or Of August IN The year 1s6o. at the honsc
knoHn as No. 3 Blocker street, in the city Of New
8. Was the plaintiff ignorant Of such adultery lit
commitedl untfl the 9Th day Of January, 1852, and
waf euch adultery ttf co1umltted) without his con.
sent, eonniyance, PriEfty Or procurement.
ton Ind more than five Jeats elapsed since the fact
Of eueh adultsIoos intercourse came to the knowl-
ID. nas lie plsfntta, with knowledge Of the fact
Of eueh adultery. forgiven the same by ACTUAL CO.
habitation with said defendant, with knowledge Of
the ontnte.
il. Has The plaintiff, with knowledge OF the fact
Of sueh adultery, forgiven the same, md is such
tosg7ve1sss Ct proven by express proofs:
RI, =. pta the plaintiff commit adultery with one
Elccta n Potter, as stated in the defence alleged
BY the defendant in the third eecon Of her evpnic-
mental answer IN this actIop.
Elects u Potter, as stated in the defence alleged
By the defendant in the fourth section Of her SUP.
elemental answer IN this action.
H. Did the plaintiff commit adultery with oue
Eecta II. Potter, as stated in the defence alleged
BY The defendant IN the hGh section Of her eupple-
mental answer IN this action.
THE OPENING ADDRESS.
After the roll call of the jurors and the
restoration Of quiet the Judge called the case,
and Mr. Cram, on behalf Of the plaintiff. rose
to open the proceedings. He traced the early
family connections Of his client, and his sub.
scquent marriage in 1858 with the defendant.
Mr. Strong Was the son who, under the in
structions Of the paternal will. cared for the
mansion In which his aged mother resided,
and where the children Of the family were
He had taken his wife to the house, which
was situated in Newton. Long Island, and
while there in 1857 his brother. Edward \. :,
Strong, had become widower, and took M
bis residence With them. This Edward had
been ineonsolahle for the loss of his wife,
He had built Sunday School and had foined
the Church. The counsel proposed to show to
the jury By the evidence that this brother hsd
commenced criminal intercourse with thc
wife Of the plaintiff In the spring Of 1850 that
this intimacy was continued until It's iliscoy-
81, 5ust previous % to II the 5th Of january, 1859.
army, but in the holidays Of 1861 cane homo
On leave Of absence, and was again, it Is al-
! legged, guilty Of adultery with tie desenlant
at the house No: 80 East TventY-lrst street.
to which the plaintiff had in the meantim:
renoved: Three children had been born 10
vas With child ut this time, but II wns never
born aliyc. It Ind pleased the Almighty to
take the youngest, Edith, on the "a of janu-
ary, 1862. The mother, filled with grief, for
she was human, was hmeuting over
the death Of her child. On the even
| ing Of the 5th Of January, while the husband