The New York herald., 1868-01-08
SUPREME cousT-cHAmBeRs.
A Remarkable Divorce Cause.-The Csnss
Quenccs Of Hasty Litigation.
Before Judge Cardoxo.

Remarkable Divorce Cause.-The Csnse-
Quenccs Of Hasfy Litigation.
Before Judge Cardozo.
Nausxel H Cornell vs Emma Cornell This was An
action instituted for divorce the ground Of the al
legsd adultery Of the defendant Tho suit was COM
nsaced the 2sh Of August 1857, BY service Of sum-
mons only. On the 3lst Of August defendant BY her
attorney, r u Harrington, demanded . copy Of tho
complaint and on tho a3d Of September the complaint
was served motion subseq made to strike
out certain portions Of the complaint on the ground or
tho 2sd Of October. In the meantime order had
been obtained extending the defendants time to
swer the complaint uat after the decision motion
% strike out On the I4th Of November, inc
Day ON which the order last men.iened ex.
Pirsd tho defendants attorney s'ns ar,o ns cief. TX
obtain further extension Of hve days to answer. A
man named J. B. Freeman, whom the clerk supposed
was partner Of Mr. A Reuwee the plaintiffs attorney,
was At tho time in the Office, and upon the clerk making
known the nature Of his business, the obgng M Free
10Th Of November the served on plaintiffs
Attorney and on the 2lst Il returned with the in
Be received. On the 22d of November the defendants
attorney informed by the plaintiffs attorney that
Of
ANTS attorney discovered that tho paintins attorney
had applied 70 Judge ngrahsm on the 10th Of November
on the day after the consent bad been aligned BY FREQ
man /. was aso found that on tho 10th of November
shs referee: that proof was nken and the pIalntns
case closed and the referees report obtaned and that
On the 10th Of November the plaintn had the report
confirmed the Court and decree OF divorce granted
Al these proceedings had without any notice what
ever TO the defendant Yesterday the before
she Court motion 70 aside the decree and
tho default the ground Of the irregularities mentioned
Il appeared upon the motion that the 18th Of kovem
osr six days after the report confirmed the plain
0n, Mr.. Cornell, married Q woman named Josephine
Drfgga
M Rsnwss the plaintiffs attorney, read several am
lavits forth variety Of facts and, among Others
that Mr.. Freeman way authorized 10 sign tho
consent, and was merely q cl ent and friend OF the
plainns attorney but the irregularities complained OF
were uncontradicted- gentleman who appeared with
She Irregularities wero OF the most fragrant nature,
ana ask OF the Court that in tho event OF the
being opened the planta be protected that
no charges OF adultery might DO made by de-
fsndsnt against the plan1 based hs intercourse
tn his wife, late Josephine Briggs, since his mar
siage with that lady.
Tue dsieuaant's counsel replied that there Was no
need for apprehension that point ~ the answer as
already stood, and as bad been rejected by plaintiffs
attorney charged the plaintiff with adultery with jose
phue Briggs prior 10 the commencement Of the suit,
that they expected show that paintih had taken
Miss Briggs TO Long Branch and lived with her there.
The Court declined 10 consider the question Of Free
mans authority sgn the consent and stated that the
Court could not In . where the plsintin had
avsed himself OF such Irregularities, interfere 10 pro-
tect him from their consequences, and accordingly
opened the For plaintiff, A. Runws; for defend
amt X. NJ Harrington.