The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-12-22
THE PETERSEN ABANDONMENT CASE.

Brief Review or tho Evidence and DeclsIoa
of Justice NIansnoId-The Prisoner Peserson
DISCHARGED from Custody.
This interesting and somewhat complex case, the
whole evidence having been published the HERALD,
and which has created little interest and speculation
in the community. was brought to close yesterday 1t
the Third District Police Court, Justice Mansfield rrs-
siding The parties together with their friends, being
present. the Judge briefly reviewed the matter Of the
complaint and the testimony subsequently taken V
establish and also TO dispute tho obligation sst up BY
Casharine Petersen. or Patterson, me- Mabs for FRO
lection and support Tor herself and chllren from the
defendant ~ her husband and their father.
His Honor commspced by saying that no had care
fully aud conscieuiiousiy reviewed the evidence
seq, had tonvlnc him that she had no GROUND
whatever upon which to pr cato h allegation. Wa:
that Christopher Peter on, under the Of Daniel
Petersen had been jonel in marriage - her by min
lister Of the Roman Catholic Church, at or near the
American nc in Canada East on the LIST day Of kovsm
Der, 1851. The conclusions NJ which l have
arrived ut. continued his Honor. are briefly
these:--Catbanne Maher was joined Ia mar
Patterson by Father Daily but Is shown that the
doiendsn. Is the man who took part In the marital
ceremony. In her complaint the woman Petersen, or
Patterson stated that certain marks on the
body OF the defendant, Christopher Petersen, and
when tho parts which tho marks stated TO DO
were examined such marks were not to be found This
fact alone seriously weakened the testimony and
knowledge Of the defendant on The par, OF the CON-
planant; but, being willing 10 Afford her every op.
portuny CONSISTENT with justice, permitted
her fun examination and inquiry. The exsmina-
ton shows, nrst, that Father Daily, who Joined
her in marriage TO Petersen. Patterson
could not possibly identify tho defendant rs the man
Joined by him IN marriage TO Catherine Maier the LIST
day Of January 1851 the date OF marriage certin
cate. Again, she avsrred that the marks now on bis
face, particularly on hrs were time Of
the marriage; but this assertion Is substantially con-
tradcied BY the evidence OF many witn.s whose
iimony We cannot but accept which isshat until the
year 1864 the marks alleged 10 have been 1851
not TO DO noticed found BY them that In TACT
no such marks wore there until subsequent, 70 bis
reception as patient In the New York Hos
pitai In 1854, and that when dk charged, - cor.
valescent from the hospital. then, and not tiIl
then wsre they 10 be found on his face 1he evil
dence shows that The years and months which the
complainant alleges the defendant passed with In
Canada werc spent By him in employ ment in New York
and Chicago. and that al no time during those years
and months could he nave been sbsont for any,
limited period, without their knowledge There are
many other substantial facts cduced which 70 10 prove
that Christopher Petersen, the defendant could have
been the man who was married TO and cohsbtsd With
the complainant al tho time and years and months
mentioned In the complaint for these and Other
reasons after full and careful investigation OF the
evidence adduced, clearly OF the opinion that such
evidence is insufficient to warrant In holding the
defendant upon the charge OF Abandonment And
therefore discharge the defendant from custody.