The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-05-20

Curious Divorce Casc-A United States Con.
sui In an Uncomfortable Flx-CompIcations
In tho Hymenial Knot--HOw Divorces Arc
Before Judge Barnard.
Morgan L. Smith Us. Mary Ann SIst h.--In Decen,.
Der, 1885, the plaintiff obtained in the Supreme Court
OF this city and county decree OF divorce from his
wife, the defendant the ground OF alleged adultery
on her part with various persons. Mrs. Smith was
at the time, and now is resident of Newport, KY.
and when plaintiff obtained the decree he swore
Claimed that he 1as u them S seua V' IL re Is 1o
Of st. Louis, Mo. short time previous he
had occupied the position Of General Agent Of the
and had during the war attained the rank of gen.
eral in the Union army in the Southwest A short
time after obtaining his decree against this defendant
he married q Miss Jinela, OF Vicksburg, Miss, who
has since borne him one child, and IN February,
1861 he was appointed United States Consul at Homo
Missouri.
1t appears that the first intimaon his wife had of
the decree Of divorce against her was on December
s. 1850, when Mr. Smith came to his home In New.
port, Ky; and Just before leaving the house again
divorce. She asked what he meant, and he replied
that II was "a kind Of mutual arrangement for
the idea and asked him where he obtained
A. and he declined to give her the informa.
ton, merely remarking that divorces could
be obtained very easily in the State of In
diana" lie then left her with Eve children and
some time elapsed before it could he escerl aimed
under what jurisdiction the decree had been granted
but was ultimately found TO be among the records
OF the Supreme Court OF this State.
The case came up yesterday motion to set aside
the decree as fraudulent and void. The defence
asked for delay in order TO the attendance or
aildavits OF witnesses who, IL IL alleged are now
living In Omaha lNebraska), Cincinnati New Orleans
Newport (ky.) and st. Louis. These witnesses are
the parties upon whose testimony the decree was
granted. and 1t seemed to puzzle the court to ascer-
tain by what singular circumstance all these per-
sons should have left the city and taken up their
residence In places far distant within so short
time after the former trial.
The court decided not TO act peremptorIly in the
matter, but gave the defendent leave TO submit his
afildavits at any time before June 10, 1868, when
judgment will DC entered on motion. For the mo-
ton, L. b. Morrill,; opposed, ID. w. Adams
The Erie Observation-Disclosures PostpOncm ent.
Eight motions in the Erie litigation were upon the
calendar OF this court yesterday, and upon being
called were, after some unmportant discussion, adj
iourned at the suggestion OF the court and by con-
sent OF the counsel until the 26th inst.
Inc motion on the Blo0dg00d Injunction granted
Dy Judge Cardozo, but which that Justice so fire.
quenty stated he was not DESTROYS OF hearing will
also come before Judge Barnard at the same date.
Inc contempt proceedings against Messrs. Deyin,
DAVIS, Sklulnore, Lane, Thompson, Gould and Fisk
whcn were 10 nave been heard this afternoon, were
also ADJOURNED until the 10Th inst.
was also announced 10y tho court that upon l. g
Eldr1dge coming lnto court, which his counsel ex-
pected ne would DO yesterday mad the case gone on
bail would be accepted In the sum OF SIC, 900