, 1866-12-22
DIVORCES YESTERDAY.
4 Motion for Further Specifications In
the Hart L. Stewart Case Denied
"A Motion for Alimony-A
Decree Refused.
In the divorce caAe of

VIZ w. 'o.e' eas' VI
~ H., ,n,t,ao a ~, 's; IT, aAas sa.,s l. srsw.n
10 specify person, place and Circumstance cnn-
nerteta Xii, thc .ersr.i ~. - .5.1.s"H ~ ~
m ne,ns =, BIN snd hat shs he sHnRea IN hsE proof
Of he Snne1,os Court IenScsr e,.on .son. aso1.
by ths motion Involved he question Of pleading
BILL !n this connection he said.
adultery l. charged with the specification Of
t. :ss saa aat @aad s
h1Tc been asstalned, nor u motion to qnash, and
the party would haEe been ordered 70 answer
here ii not npon the ground that there is no ai!-
!hs doctE.ne o1isignei Issues, beesnse ii ths doc
Rs u aas oss qe Il 1s esa1eaF ssasss,
sn5 snd TSs;e ~hs;s sss ox hf s K,
The EeelcsIsz.ical Courts. he coarta xaica had ia.
risdlesion undes the English pracice ot .his elass
Ct 'es coa a4 e. sossss esn u = as
co1rt, md where tnerc is fsiened i.sue made
one specific allegation would be fuflclen. The
de%ed = en- no afa
is nut true here. Hence, in this case, the only
possible onjection which could be made would b
have taken In thIp casa
motion 1s evident from the motion fled IL II
lhls. ttat M Dr0of can be recetyed pnon bill al
tSis cIa.accp eycspiinc SO fsF as linz p1sce M and
person arc named. That il The position taken
b. TIC person Who nled ihls motion, becsnsc il IS
ID this {oIu-"and state particularly the liuc and
p.sce when and WLcre ,bc nduiter7 Vns comEit-
led, together With lbs name Of Tho pernon Fit,
whom they s1s charged % h.ve besa e;n9is.ed: =
"a. 3 eennnea .9 ptoet - z he esscs thus spe
et9ed." The IeEai pottuuh snns taken y, md i
l
must be precise and all that 1t anoantt
.no Is 81 ~ objection to evidence
ast1ne M 3 aat !hs1c Is rot anolG,snt allegation IL
t1e & nM1hs. ihese are @ not spsMcaesuons &C. 81 tqs
n1see 1na ptons, a taels ts Is u sons Places; bn
not @ @tpccis,ing time. place and peFson The oblec
q ti ae's oson Il 10 eomhsl t9e parties TO Eiy.
aeoessa1y to t.s,e !: tSns, thai lie coai
unon nc TILL q the case rule on
an esiaenee exespnng tnss IN relation 10 tho1:
rs sas:aoa ss1sa /: :aSsi!'si : et1 8 csa3l
g;n Mhsa s that qnestton Propstss .sises .ho coas
:sa.s Z d. in IL ssnP5sissas : +: s1'sssa i !
me RefsSSo t1 ans, eas en- as &C.. 60 lot r. r.
Psssa III sses!5sa i %.ds xssa H. pic
Z not nameo; SAG alleges ehe don't Euow y
wss.s as So tn,
nsi s:9sd j, ihe PIG I'd p:;son ~ ~
means 30 70 60, 90 that this merely raises th
Esnefal seeas1on H. ebeei d III nc notion, @ ;he1
s III. r. 70 n
he truih o{ the allcea,son. uherc i. time. piae
sSs ss e; e. sssy Pss 1s Ut re-
metion would be 10 decide In advance. That IL a
smouno 10; that It is only the allegations whcf
| fhtf
adaitnble npon thesc l.tues. I don't undal
stand that to be the law. i have looked over ID
b'ief that has been flfd aud while ] find It l.
eeGta,n ,ian gG9d ~. DO not and Il wasTants sue
!sw eited) Wiz. us tbs praedee would he !
lions where hey eem E faa loo If indeaaS,is dh5Ss
au'ih h. Ess
be th.t when there. Is certain ease erpresse
with time, place snd person. then It Is cotnpcten
hd s 70 So sn snd ; n
to the eattttsetton OF tbs Jary. But there muat b
reasonable Allegation as to time and q
70 piase. hut - 10 Pozsoa he must sat-.
axainet man Il mus, be shown that he he nan HI
esrnai connection vith \ woman, hnt ahs nam
IL not necessary II they eutcrcd In ptoying th
1aet. This IL very easily illustrated In the cas-
In aetuai eatnal connection with woman.
~ouio oe ser5 strange Y such cAs
1 did DNS know fhn HnDasr won er11
not prove the adultery, You could swes
that she was 4 woman and swess tha. tho man b
he, 1,o Ipow; ;S W., 1nsss T. an Illustration that show
ING uantesaon itaeit
n the afss p3se. ne objection here y prens
si,nso , o. y had ns;n tsksn hy .. Ins
nouon. hs!s ordered the party to be NOR spec
DC, che haEtrE alleged ehe could not b
argued when he eatc comes up. This unotio
will therefore be ovciTrled.
Tho divorce case Of
! Hrso -. znAxusKA pnzx1n
lion in {his easo ". tlsd June = last. and ka k.
leced xr1tntt The Vic cruetrT rrnratrd and :,
tscme' Hnas ths cs,lirr h1 her nr tkc ro,1ni.in.1
Of bad nancs. The nsrties We;
Nxr,1td and tiyed in Berlin. Prussia for sntr
limo but he lei her. a he ai]rres- N rrssnn
nc esueIty, of which be eomplatas. The tac
menuation VII made That divorce b dec,eei
The Court {Jsmeson, JudeeA did not see ii
this light &c declined. In View OF the fact iii
the huabtnd did. mt chow hta foreign wIto 10 be
stronger srtmal than Be, sud that hr did not co
, 4