The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-10-10

witness CO0n3ot
in in the Marine Court and Of the most casual cha
racter He wrote letter TO debtor for That
was all the business he ever did for me- Mr. John sedg
wick was the attorney whom consulted about any little
law business had and was very little The divorce
not obtained by any trick, understanding colusion
sSsS Ssa e 1s s Ss
time was served with the summons and complaint
believed that Mrs saezer sincerely desired .o. 70
cutting it in earnest. could not truthfully
deny the charge made IN the complaint and
consequently did not attempt any defence OF the action
secretly left my house, and was gone, knew not where
for about eight days While being prosecuted she
would make fair provision for her copy OF the de-
cree in the suit served by Mr. Wetmore
OF his clerks about the 10th Of September 1854 About
the same time Mrs Saetzer spoke 70 me Of IT, and said TO
me- "Thank God it's done at last" She spoke Of II in
terms Of satisfaction several occasions during the
suing Few days. and about the time Of the decree spoke
to me as TO what provision should be made for her. All
the property then owned about 81, TOO IN money
and bonds, eight lots In Hoboken being the same lots
referred to in the affidavit Of Mr. Ward hereto annexed
worth from $3.50 to $500 each-cerainy worth a. 900
and some personal property, plate and clothing, and
THIS comprised all the property real and personal then
owned have not acquired any since except about $500
by inheritance from my mother and by my services as
architect, for which there is money due me- but
for which have actually received since the divorce only
about $500 IN ell All my property, real and personal,
value or this agreed to give Mrs. Saelszer the lots In
Hoboken worth at least 81 00O also 5000 in money and
tanned the property above spoken Of and worth
$500, against my wish and notwithstanding my repeated
requests to have them given up to me- She thus OBJ
tanned from me this settlement property to the value
In all Of $4,000 being left only about So 100 worth;
and even OF this afterwards gave at different times
sums 10 about $3.50 Mrs Saeltzer immediately after
the divorce said she must separate from and do
The best she could for herself and asked to help
establishing her boarding house For about three
weeks in the latter part Of September and beginning of
October 1864, assisted her much could. employ
ing and paying workmon; and she did establish
al M in I'll ftnr
had aided in establishing her there never called upon
her except on business connected with the settlement
with reference 10 my personal property kept by her. and
only on few occasions II became necessary FOR me to
emil In respect transferring her the deods for the
arose respecting sale OF the lots for taxes, from which
had to redeem them that she 'ght have them tree
and clear On the 18th September, 1854, the paper
hereto annexed In my handwriting, specifying the furni
tnre Mrs Saeizer was TO retain on the settlement and
the personal property was TO keep made out and
signed by her The signature Is in her handwriting At
the time this signed also gave her six hundred dol
lars IN money and very after the deed OF the Hobo
ken lots. About the latter part Of February 1865
heard Tor the first time that my present wife was then
widow Soon afterwards l visited her II then
about fourteen years since had any communication
with her We had renewed acquaintance about six
weeks when she and J. on the 4th day OF April 1865
married al H0boken in the State Of New Jersey.
She is now, resulting from that marriage pregnant My
present &c is wealthy, and that fact is known to
former wife. Mrs Saeltzer at any time until
more than two months after this marriage expressed any
feeling other than satisfaction at divorce At nearly
every meeting she expressed herself being much
happier since our separation About the goth June.
1866, surprised ut receiving letter from Mcssrs
Edwards Hamilton acting as her attorneys, in which
the following demand Is made:-''She demands two
things Of you: one is that you refrain from calling
her and annoying her by your harsh department towards
her and ISLANDERS of her. and the other is that you
pay her back the two thousand dollars Of her property
that you received your marriage so that she
turn 10 ner friends in Germany About tho 14th OF
September 1885, was called by Charles w Sacltzer
proceedings were being taken by his mother to set aside
the divorce but he told that all that wished for
was money, and that II would pay reasonable
her there would be no further trouble He again call
on me on the LIST day Of October, 1855 Sunday and
made in substance the same statement The affidavit OF
Mr. Ludicus that lc Is informed that received about
i've thousand Prussan thaiers from my mothers estate
which was worth about ten thousand dollars and that
have that sum deposited to my credit, is wholly
founded In fact The following is true statement Of
my aairsFrom the year 1851 10 1884 received in all
about the Of four thousand dollars in United States
paper currency from my mothers estate. During the
four years preceding my bnsnessthat of architect
was almost at dead stand, and had even given
up my Office had almost no business and earned
almost nothing and had during these four years spent
the most OF what had previously saved received the
$4,000 in instruments. Including all received from my
mothers estate had in September, 1884 in money and
property about 80 000 divided have above specified
and nothing else, except an unpaid portion Of my
have received the 5000 above mentioned / have now
only about $500 in cash, which my ony property
excepting the unpaid claim Of $500 from my mothers
estate and claim for services architect also unpaid
AZ to Mrs. Sactzers property, the following the
factsI never received, directly indirectly any part
vanccd at the time Of our marriage II advanced by any
person was to herself personally for her outfit and
never received any OF IT, The five hundred or Fix hun
dred thaers which she says came to her when her
brother died In 1S45 all received by her and uscd by
her personally and did not to joint maintenance
much less sum which she then received
In 1853 the house in Germany Mrs Saezer speaks Of
sold FOR about eight thousand thalcrs II was mort
gagged for than half The value and the not sum-
which was paid TO me for Mrs. Saelizer, about
200 and very little II any, exceeding that sum- Mrs
Saatf huAc horn al
rious times about 5000 OF my money l retained
equal amount Of this 81 400 and pad y her at her
ing due her. For the eight Hobokcn lots after the
divorce, had iona fde offer OF 1925 LOT from the
agent OF the Hoboken Land Association He said he had
an oer OF $50 lot and he wanted 10 make something
by the purchase. informed Mrs. Saeltzcr, she being
the owner but she said she thought the price low
and that she would not sell at that price The lots are
undoubtedly worth $3.50 piece and can readily be sold
for that
Mr. Charles w. wetmore, tho lawyer referred to by
Mrs. Saeltzer In her AFFIDAVIT states in n deposition
which is among the papers presented 10 the court that
previous to the interview with that lady August 1901
he never had conversation with other the plaintiff
the defendant tho subject OF divorce that at that
interview the plaintiff stated that she wished to be
and violent Manners TINT be Wctmorf, told her she
could obtain limited divorce or II she could prove
adultery might get an absolute divorce that she said
she would prefer an absolute divorce, f sufficient
testimony could be produced; that he rWctmorc)
drew up complaint for absolute divorce. which the
plaintiff read, approved and signed; and that he did
not during The progress OF the case, talk with the
defendant in respect TO the suit that after oil
these steps had been taken the idea Of Mr. Saezcrs in
sanity for the first time preached by Mr. Ludicus in
conversation at which Mrs Sacltzcr present, and
that It vs urged that the defendant should be locked up
In Iunatc asylum that he tWctmore) discouraged this
project that he countenaced the idea Of insanity,
and that everything 10 by the plaintiff and Mr.
Ludcus as TO that matter entirely false; that the
fact that actual suit to DO prosecuted Judgment
was clearly understood by the plaintiff
Aessrs II Y. Cutler and A. J. vandcrpoel argued the
matter ioftho plaintiff and defendant considerable
length and with much warmth, repeating tho facts set
up In the above afdavits At the conclusion Of the
gucnt the Judge took the papers and reserved his de-
cIson
Mexico.