New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-06-01
THE COURTS.
THE APPLETON CASE REVIVED

Samuel r. appleton dgt Amelia s. Appleton
Supreme Characteristic Mr. Justice Cardozo
This case which has been long before the Courts ana
frequently reported up again yesterday The taots
of the case these. In 1870 1s the defendant d
RED man or the name OF Warner, with whom sh hout
for some time, and by whom she had children there
1850 Mr. Warner left her, and went TO CaoIts, t AFTER
ne lived for several years Mrs Appleton AYERS LaI b
1884 until after the Commensurate Of this suit enc heau
nothing OF him. The plaintiffs brotncIi In ieSs She
became engaged 10 Mr. Appleton, and about thS uihe
instituted proceedings In Indiana iO' ntd Int tbe de-
Spring of that year divorce was graSH ouS tb N
cree Was not granted till after her maItage WIN Eb
Appleton Which took place at sI o., re Ut Sns oc
other reason post dated the books OF the Church
this Mr. Appeodh m % brotbes and friends
20 Observation-Disclosures and placed under treatment there
" thnSt tbis time Mr. Warner turned up in New-fork
ADou ib some way in contact with the bro theirs of
Mr. AppletOn A suit was commenced In Mr.. Appiei0hs
name to declare tho marriage VOID on te n5
at once applied for aimony to carry ON her DEFENSE Inc
motion was heard by Judge Barnard and denied on the
ground that the case must on the admitted IaGs % az
cjded FOR the plaintiff new motion was then mace
and argued by Mr. James T. Brady, that the answer DO
amended as TO set up tnat she had communicated III
the facts to Mr. Appleton before marrying him. ana on
dozO. in quite elaborate opinion held that tne giving
decree in such was matter OF discretion 10 lle
Court and not Of strict right ana that %G GSpI
or greater wrong with the defendant the Court might
refuse him relief from an act deliberately done 10y mn
BE, therefore, allowed the answer TO be amended ana
allowed the defendant amony to maintain the action
On appeal TO the General Term that CouTt overISG
him An appeal taken 10 the Court OF Appeals put
that Court held that these orders were OF the
able class and they would not therefore entertain the
appeal, A., -.,,-,,, -, rro,,or ., r,artiG,s
attorney The defendant then moved TO dismiss the case
altogether the ground that this was personal action
and Mr. Appleton being lunatc could not bring the
action himself and no person had authority or could nave
authority TO bring such action. This was opposed
the plants counsel claming that Mr. Appleton was not
without power TO give intelligent assent 70 or direction
for the bringing OF suit In support OF this he read sew
era letters puTpOrtng be from Mr. Appleton IN one OF
which he that he has purpose 90 live with anoher
mans wife II, however appeared that In pprutlon
proceeding In which he and his brothers were interested
they had treated him as q luuatic That motion was
argued before Judge CardOzo at the April Term, and
Judge CardOzo has yet given no decision in H. To-day
a new motion was made by plaintiff TO permit, on the
ground Of his uuacy his brother Daniel 20 come in as
his next friend and prosecute the suit on his behalf Ie
defendant opposed claiming that no "next friend" could
remodel the action the plantm should either dscoh
counsel fee, and commence again IN proper shape, or II
the amendment were allowed, should still pay The
the plaintiff contcndcd that Mr. Daniel Appleton should
not be muctod and that the course which they sought
70 pursue was one sustained by several decisions IN 9as
sachusetts and elsewhere which they thought were also
precedents for this Court.
judge Cardozo said he had been considering the former
motion with much and had come number OF
decisions In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania bearing on
IT, He had not yet arrived az conclusion, but he was
free 10 say that his impression was against the painH
1t was complicated question. With regard 10 the
present motion he would ask counsel for plaintiff TO
Whether the plaintiff having been removed from the qr
isiicton Of the Court when in such condition as TO be
the ward OF the COur must not be brought before the
Court so that could ascertain by examination either
directly or though commissioners his condition, or at
any rate brought within the jurisdiction OF the Court
before any such motion could be entertained. .
Mr. Smith, on behalf OF the plaintiff. said that Mr.
Appleton had been only removed TO Massachusetts be-
cause IT thought 20 be for his good TO place him In
friendly charge, and that there would be no objection or
its jurisdiction The Court took the papers reseryng It's
decision