The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-11-14
THE sAElTzER DIVORCE SUIT.
Decision OF Judge InRraham-The Decree
OF Divorce Not Vacated.
SUPREME CouRT-CHAMBERs.
Before Judge Ingraham.

Before Judge Ingrnnam.
CauriUa Sdsiser ps Alexander Sdct,er.-Judgc Ingra
ham yesterday rendered decision In this case which,
will be remembered very peculiar in It's cir
cumstanccs and presented very unusual law points
The decision Is az follows
In August 1894, the plaintiff commenced this action
against the defendant obtain divorce the ground
OF adultery The complaint charged the adultery TO have
been committed in July, 1854, at house In Greene
street. and at various times thereafter with per-
son whose name unknown TO the plaintiff. The
complaint was sworn to by the plaintiff in August 1854
The defendant made no defence reference was
dered and proof given by two witnesses who test
fed to having the defendant 90 into the house
ferrcd TO in company with female other than his wife,
where be remained some time, and also OF the defend
ants statement that he had improper intercourse
there On this and other evidence divorce was
granted In September 1894 The plaintiff TO
sci aside the Judgment OF divorce alleging the
for Il that the whole proceeding was commenced without
any intent TO procure divorce but under the advice Of
the benefit OF the defendant that he insane and she
must yield to his wishes the subject and not contra
dict him. and that by doing he would be more likely
10 receive his reason She further that IL was
we'll understood between her and her attorney that II was
not TO be used for any other purpose and that che never
conduct emitting her TO divorce. In those matters the
pantins affidavit IL coroborated by tho affidavit OF Ed
%ara nudicns who IN conversion with ,ne attorney
plant was only intended for the purpose stated by tho
plaintiff In reference TO the supposed insanity Of the de-
PENDANT The plaintiff also alleges that the DEFENDANT
had some property Of hers the time OF the marriage
and that he afterwards received second sum OF money
belonging TO her and also that the defendant received
on his own account large Of money from Gcrma-
ny while no provision for alimony made in the de-
cree for her benefit The defendant denies these charges
and also tho receipt OF moneys belonging TO her From
the adavts OF both parties appears that their rea-
lions to each other during the Continuance Of the
rage were not OF friendly character but each one
charges the other with conduct that was calculated TO
render the parties unhappy and dissatisfied with each
other The defendant also asserts that the plaintiff fire.
quenty expressed her determination TO obtain d.
vorce, TO which he did not object; but at her re-
quest introduced her TO the attorney who acted for
her. He further says he made no disguise, be.
cause he could not deny the charge made by
her appears that after the divorce was obtained he
conveyed 70 her lots at Hobokcn that she also re-
tanned part Of the furniture according 10 agreement
therefor which Is produced, signed by plaintiff The
defendant also alleges that he gave her other sums of
money, and that in all she received from him more than
half OF all he was worth at the time Of the divorce
Adavits also produced the part OF the defend
sa' V show that !he plantn had told others that sAs