The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-09-14
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE,

Court OF Quarter Sessions-Judge Ludlow.
DE ertion cases were before tue Court to-day.
There were upwards of fifty bills to be disposed OF.
CITY VS.. james Duras. The defendant was charged
with the desertion OF his wife. She stated that she
had been married three years, and had no children
often threatened TO take her life rhe COur ordered
defendant 10 pay SO per week for the support of his
WIFE,
City VS.. William Furgeson In this case the wife
did not appear, and the defendant was discharged.
ClCv VS.. james Grinder. The defendant was
charged with the deseI ton OF his wlfe aud two
children. They had been married fourteen years.
He deserted them last March, ano since then has
given them but $11 The Court made an order OF
$3.50 per week for the support of his family
City ys John L Wmttck This was petition re-
guessing the Court 70 make an order of weekly
sum rom the son for tue support of his mother.
There were four sons. The mo her is more than
Sky years old The other sons were willing to aid
then mother, but this refused to aid her. The
son saId that he had often given her home IN his
house. but she would not remain with him. That he
wac a married man with fami y, and had but a
the order should be equallzed among the There
toIe the matter was continued.
City VS. Thomas Maloney. The defendant was
charaed with deseruon, but the wife not appearing
he was discharged.
was heard before his Honor Judge Pierce, who .ad
vlse0 the parties 10 i've together. The said
could not live with him on account OF his conduct
wbie frequently under the influence OF liquor. The
Court renewed an order of So 80 per week.
City VS.. Charles F1dele. The defendant was
char ged with the desertlon of his family. The two
have been married eighteen years, and have three
children, aged seventeen. twelve, and two years.
II as alleged that the husband deserted his wife in
1862; that he it now living with another wo nan
doing q good business IN pay speculation; that
the husband gave the reason for deserting his wife
that his mistress young seamstress, was MOI
il was al eyed that the husband was legally df
vorCed from his wife; and, moreover he gave her
three hundred dollars last January. The wife set
bad example for her children, by taking them, and
gong with them ESPECIALLY her oldesJ daughter) to
dIsleputabe houses, and low dances That the
Youngest child was IeP1timate having been born
two wears after the husband left her, But the wife
said that her husband came frequently 10 her
until her child was nine months old, and that he
supported her until that time.
II was also alleged that since he had obtained
divorce ne had been married to this lady, whom the
wifc called his IN stress.
Imuortant Opinion on Divorce Suit.
=, Rosina Graley James Graiey This was mo-
tion 70 reduce the amount OF alimony and to remit
The payment of the almonv now due under an order
of the Court, made on the 2Oth OF January 1865 on
the pround-hrst, that the defendants income hao
betn reduced; and, secondly, that he had been i'm
prisoned on attachment for non.paymeLt of the
alimony, and that during such imprisonment he
cai,ned to have satisfied all the amount then due.
,us'ice Robertson delivered the following opinion:
AS to the application to be believed from paying
the amony already ordered l think the Cour
can only relieve him under the provisions of the
Revised Statute I'D volume, 53S, sec ion 20l. when
he makes a disclosure somewhat similar to
o. or imprisoned debtors desiring q dIscharpe
He simply denies his present ability 10 paw.
The order for alimony was undoubtedly made on
due evidence OF his means. He has allowed the
order to remain for over five months before he was
attached, and even until the present time-some two
months moIe--without asking Tor a modification.
He had no right to dispose OF his earnings otherwise
and leave his wIe and children without the support
ordered, and then ask the Court as favor to dis
charge him.
The afRdavits, however disclose a diminution of
his income, and during his Imprisonment he of
cOu,se earned nothing. The order for his commit
mel may be discharged on his paying the amount
due for allmony, for which he was committed. The
order for amony during his imprisonment may be
the order tor alimony may be reduced to $40
weekly y Herald.