New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-05-14
SINGULAR DIVORCE CASE.
The Divorce LAVA Minister Of the Gospel Di'
vorsed without His Knowfedge-Hew d.
vorces are Legally Procured.

The case of Saxton agt Saxton, which came up
in the Supreme Court before Justice Barnard on SATURDAY
was remarkable one This brings prominently upthe
pecuar,es of the divorce this State whahe facts
NAV be in this particular Of course cannot he positively
known but that the defendants story should be quite pooa
HE 1. sufficient scandal The column Of decisions published
in this paper often contain the Of parties with h
words All Icd Referees report confirmed and Judgment OF
dvorce and this is all that rule Is known OF ne
co,e OF the parties Immediately Interested II peihe
against rules Of tie Court 10 allow any one oa tue %
MES parties to see the testimony taken Deoe
the Referee Thus according the advertisement OF one o.
the ATTORNEYS engaged IN the practice are s
In this particular case the wife in November last com,
an action divorce and charged the defendant Will
TWO acts Of adultery committed February 1862 The wife
resided with her parents In this city the wa
ia tie exercise Of his functions as AZ h a. he AID
Conn Personal could not be made on him. AZ he uu
NOT reside mere order for service on him BY publication
IN The and L,ddr for six weeks ana by posths VIC
mon, and complaint directed TO the defendant at Norwich
m, sn went on regularly referred and Francis
sutb giving his residence OF No 70 Ludlow st. swore 70
The adultery and the Referee reported on tae
of Fetrnary last the confirmed the report OF the Referee
and granted Of divorce and this decision was 10
ito nsua course published In the newspaper THIS Oeg INC
frs, publicity accorded 10 the suit. -.
Mr. seYton comes In and moves to set the judgment
aside on afrdayits Of which give abstracts lie says tna
S S The nlantif were married in 1855 by the Rev. DR.
ADAMS and lived together iii ls6I years at Nor
wichtown. Conn., when they came TO tbis Guy snu
turned Norgichtown refused accompany him. and has
since resided with her parents Heeyer received any papers
n, The suit and the be knew OF was from seeing IN
cow of THg TRIBUNE received by him on the eth
of February 1906 the announcement OF the decree se on
The "a He hereupon instituted inquiries and found that th
grnnds OF the divorce alleged acs Of adultery commit
Ted in January and February leo9 ai houses In Meces
He these wicked and malicious iasehoods ana
saw he never was in either the houses MENTIONED any
house prostitution and not at the times charged IN the
CITY OF York lie he never received any copy OF
the summons aud does not believe was ever mailed TO him
He further says the plaintiff has not remarred that ms
standing as a Christian minister greatly injured Dy ths de
cree and that only Of einsatng himself by com
IN and defending the action and that he that Inc
suit instituted at the instigafion OF ms we parents
In support the defendants affidavit sn affidavit OF the
Rev Dr. Adams read youehng for Mr. sa1ions chsrac
ter and stating that the painh peihg member oI ns
church had applied him for letters Of admission TO the
New Rochelle whereupon.he called ner attention 70
qured what grounds she had procured the divorce wne
she told him simply on the ground 81 mcgee, ana
had been granted for adultery. mi.
that finding o. A Houses name a. planIls Attorney ne
went Office and be ascended the stairs saw the words
NJ once that il the Mr. Howes mentioned in
advertisement which be had follows Divorces oh.
tanned without publicity and actually without fee TIL legal
divorce is obtained Consultation free" Deponent went up
stairs and room No s. the words u A House law.
wards NJ Howes lawyer" lie entered tue and found
who stated that he plaintiffs attorney and
Of the summons had him. and that he did not know where
either that boy Francis smith, the witness could be
An affidavit OF person who had lived at No 81 Ludlowst
for years and heard OF Smith also read
She il 20 years old and o, children she and her
husband children resided with her father from April 1901
we're wholly supported by her father be contributing nothing
10 their support that they lived very unhappiy together
dnrng mart OF this time often speaking each other for
weeks at time in the latter part OF February ls62 he
de.eed her without giving her opportunity go with
him after be left began feel herself burden on her
father and frequently him to send her for her
support and to provide place to live in Offering him over and
over 10 live with him at places since February eo2 he
has $780, that about IL months she went
10 him aud urged him 10 provide for her. Offering to
live with him she must return 20 her father
and say with him till he for her aud she had 10 come
hack without enough TO pay her return fare
She further that she positive he was IN New YORK city
during all OF January aud 10 the 0h or 18th OF February
ls2 and she fully believes that be committed the acts OF
charged this complaint she has always felt deli
eacy IN the subject Of her husbands adultery which
was the reason did fully set forth her charges TO Dr.
Adams She further that the divorce obtained at her
own she had heard OF his adueries that she
has no means prosecution OF the suit while the defend
ant has large school institute and grounds IN Connecticut
worth about $1,000
Adavits Of the plaintiffs father and mother and OF Mrs
Susan Livingston read in confederation OF MIS- sax
tons statements and affidavit OF Mr. House that he oeeved
the summons and complaint TO have been properly posted
Judge Barnard In divorce IN future shall compei
all witnesses before and give their evidence IN
open court There shall references by me IL peo
ME are too into court thon let them keep
out of IT, shall adjourn this case until TINS witness
comes in satisfy me eoncus'e as 10 the truth
OF the other aide can have u opportunity
Tbe oase was then adjourned TO Thursday next.
Mr. Thatcher W. Adams for defendant Nj John ID Nc
Gregor for plaintiff