The national Republican., 1867-11-23
THE COURTS,

ciAcuIr ceusr - chief Jnss..e osuue - ns [
court wss occupied Yesterday mainly with tbs Dssly
ness Of johanna Ds.ly's mind when she executed
certain deei that forms the basis OF the chanesry |
suit. i
One Of the qiestions asked q witness was, whose
money purehas,d certain OF the real estate conveyed
BY the deed in question: This question was objsetsd
The Court ruled that, as the quo amino Of johanna
Dssly In dispipg Of this property would BE- an ss-
.sntl.l eleatn,ia the jury's determination o. her
with The propshy which would shed light upon that
quo amino. nishtsafely BE- heard -
TO the Jury without argument.
The Jury found thst Joh,nns Dssly was not com.
pstsnt to make deed At the time she executed the
paper Ia question
III. Asriiok entsssd motion for a new trial.
AssIpxMKxr FOR MONDAY.
Cases Nos a. 3D. 29e. 49, 2s9. 2ta, 2ss, lso,ls7 ls,
The eOurt ,hsu ,djourasd until Monday ssIt
EQurrr CouRr-sPxcrAL TERx-Jndgs Wyiis.
The Court ys't'rdsy was oeeupisd By the follow
als R.s.a vs.. Rss.n. HI; Murray named guar.
dian ad iiem and farther testimony % bs taken.
sos Wood Va. Wood dai. Commissioner's sale
sSi winupsnny vs.. sp,ulding ct al Decree .p.
pointing WI. MAtting'y to eel defendants, undi'
1915 Myers vs.. Myers Order striking from tho
hle, the snswsr OF George AID Emma Berry.
ruE srArrs OF eoLoRED ooSsuBIAL RELATIONS.
toI. Brown vs. Beckett d al This case, sum.
mary Of which appeared in these columns some two
months ago on Its hearing, was decided Yesterday,
Judge wylis reading an Exhaustive opinion.
s.do. Of o.n.a S.s .osss to set ssds
decd for the use Of Mary Beckett who was alleged
70 bs the wife Of said clement for tho purpose OF
ceiling such properly under au execution against
II sppsarsd that the land Ia question was origin.
| ally purchased In the name Of Olement Beckett but
the zane by erecting buildings thereon. She had.
| Also. paid Of, In small sums, An incqmbranes OF
o. bo0 which Clement had created on the property,
and therefore Clement had the lots decided to her II
this deed which the suit Is made 10 set aside, al
though since that tins she has spent some ~ 900 OF
her own earnings ss wa.herwomAn a. the hospitals
srty "still," the Judge says, Eve are bound to
decide that, however WORTHLESS. the husband may be,
Sos .tI. isd fss Il. s.S 81 and T .Ss S S1G
amount exceeding It's value, that win not save her,
nasi bs .si aside Is fraudulent a, agaiast creditors.
Whose claims were In existence at the date Of ita
The Judge holds that these principles do not apply
TO this case, bscAuss Mary Beckett was net In law.
the wife Of Clement the evidence showing that when
they came together IN 1855 both were slaves and 70
| was q stranger Even after both were smAuoipAisd
thsy continued TO live together Just as they had done
| before, no presumption ol marriage MlhnB IN Ts-
from In this case because the fact Of their previous
life explains the nature Of their relations to each
other. Nor does ths Judge think that proof Of tbs
marriage Of VIM Beckett 10 Caroline Slater (blaoks,)
shown the msrass register, OF Apy force to prove
| the marriage Of Clement Beckett and Mary Slater
| nor does the fact Of q recital of her As the wife o
Clement Beckett ip deed for her beneht, bat which
she never signed sstop her from denying, in equity
| the marriage relation, Tbs dtpositions all Prov
that Mary Beckett acted In her own name, snd held
| herself out In all matters VI buSisess As unmar
| rsd womlu and was 80 treated aud regarded by III,
world Both OF the parties, In thsir sworn answers,
deny that they were ever mIrfied 'ubiequently Il
| the AequisitiOn Of their freedom. The judge says
~ th,n, marriage prior to that was imp .ssibls
der The law Of slavery, their relation 10 each othe
WAS only that Of eoneubnAge, and Its character hal
not been changed since by any act Of theirs.''
| Neither he continues, could maintAin luii
for divorce from the other, aud II either were nov
| 10 marry no Indictment could be sustained for big
amy not because the law requires the marriage Il
be proved, but bsoause In this case the marriage wa
question Of evidence, tho onus being upon the par
ties who assent II. Consent, and not cohAbitAtioI
makes marriage and eohabitation alone 10 but sligh
| evidence Of nuptials, except 10 hose cases whsr
II would bs q fraud upon third parties were
| otherwise, He eonoludsa thus "The injustie
| threatened TO bs done 70 this poor woman and he
children BY seizures the fruits Of labor, economy
and thrift, and applying them second time to n
| payment of ths debts Of thriftlesa aud trihpl
drons. whom she has fed, slothed and sheltered be
cause he wa, the father Of her children, may fortu
nasiy bs aysrted without the violation Of any Of th
1 established ralss Of law The bill should be dis
The soprt thea AdjOurpsd until ta'nqrrpw morn
4 Ing, ~