The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-09-09
THE COURTS.

EoUIrr CouRr-Judgs Wpln.-This court
opened, In pursuance Of its adjournment on
Tuesday, lie September term yesterday.
Tho docket contains sixty Ave cases, mos.
OF which have already been noticed In these
reports.
The following cases were brought 70 the
consideration Of the court during its session |,
A DIVORCE CASE.
Sarah Ann johnson vs.. John NJ. johnson.
This IL position for divorce from bed and
board, heretofore reported tho complain
ant alleging that she had lived with her hus-
band 81 years, and had been . good wife to
him, but that he had, for q long period,
treated her cruelty, threatened her, len her
without sufficient maintenance, and finally
turned her out OF doors without the means
idgc for defendant.
The case now comes up upon motion by
Mr.. Merrick, that tho court make an order
upon the defendant directing him to pay to
tho defendant proper sum as allmony, to
enable the defendant to support herself and
employ counsel during the suit.
Mr.. Davidgo for the defendant objected
that the allegations Of the petition were not
such specific charges as were contemplated
by the act Of Congress as q foundation for
q divorce. He thought that the pleader had
bubuttutcu OWu uOtlOub Vi tut Causes Oh
divorce for the causes fxcd by the law, and
had 10 the petition neglected definitely to tx
the offence complained Of and specifically to
answer that charge.
Mr.. Merrick argued that II was not neccs-
sary to set forth In the petition specific al
legation that o certain act alleged to have
been committed was an act OF cruelty. II
was not needful to set out conclusions OF law.
Here the fact that the defendant had turned
the petitioner out Of doors without cent to
provide herself with the means OF subsist-
enco was fully set out In the petition, the ne
ccssary Inference OF cruelty growing out Of
that act.
Mr.. Dayldge replied, going into the ques-
ton Of the English practice In cases Of all.
mony as bearing upon the Maryland Law on
the subject TO which Mr.. Merrlck had al
luded. He thought, however, that the act
OF Congress, by covering the ground, opcr-
ted to repeal the Maryland statute. The
remedy here sought was not under the or
binary equity powers, but under q special
Jurisdiction conferred on the courts by stat
ute.
Mr.. Merrick replied briefly, and the court
then took the papers.
ASoTnEa DIVORCE SUIT.
Mary Summers vs.. Henry Summers. Muz-
zey for petitioner; Hlne for defendants. This
case was begun and reported last year. Iii
petition In which the plaintiff asked divorce
from her husband on the ground that he was
married to and living with another woman.
The defendant In his answer denies that the
petitioner is or ever was his wife. He az
hrms that he lived with the petitioner, but
denies that he was ever married to her.
The case now comes up upon o motion by
Mr.. Muzzey for an order upon the plaintiff
to furnish the defendant with money as all
mony to pay counsel fees. The motion was
resisted by Mr.. Hine.
Mr.. Muzzey said that there was no doubt
that II the petitioner had money 10 carry on
her suit she could prove her marriage. He
produced an Informal certificate from an at
torney in New Orleans that the record Of the
marriage was TO be found In church tn ere.
This informal certificate could be made for
nal on other evidence presented II the de-
PENDANT could get the money to prosecute
her suit. The evidence showed however that
the petitioner was woman OF no very high
claims to respect.
Judge Wylie said that under the circum-
stances he would refuse the order, and leave
the party to get along as best she could with
out the aid ofthe court.
ANOTHER DIVORCE CASE.
George Z. Ward rs. Mary +. Ward. This
Is another petition for divorce, In which the
defendant has entered no appearance. The
facts were taken for confessed. We have
before published the substance of the bill.
Ward alleges that he married his wife In
Alexandria, Va; that she soon became very
proalgate, and was constantly In the habit
Of frcquenting houses Of III fame. He spe-
cihes acts OF adultery committed In this city
during November and December, 1868, vita
one William Bryan. Judge Wylie, on mo-
ton Of Mr.. Hine, granted decree OF divorce
In the usual form.
Mitchell VS.. Roberts Ct al. Judge wylie
made an order setting aside marshal's sale
made In this case, and granted q temporary
Injunction.
Snyder VS.. James ct al. No appearance
having been entered, the Court ordered the
facts alleged In the bill to be taken as con-
fessed. r.
Busey VS.. Moore ct al. Order to issue no.
tlce Of an application for injunction.
Boyle vs.. O'Leary. This Is a bill to set
aside fraudulent sale. Tho Court made
an order granting leave to continue the TAX
Ing OF testimony until the Goth Of September.
Parrish vs.. Peugh. The defendant not having
answered the charges OF the bill, the Court
ordered that such charges by taken as con-
fessed.
The court then adjourned until Friday
morning at II O'Clock.
DISTRICT CouRT - Judge Wylb. This
court was occupied as follows yesterday;
Mr.. T. Wilson, on behalf Of T. Fahey,
filed libel suit against the schooner II.
Curtis, W. Richardson master, now lying In
the port OF Washington, alleging that Rich
ardson had contracted to bring from Bangor,
Me-, a cargo Of laths worth q, 1851 to Fahey,
for q sum certain rs freight, but that al
though the cargo has reached Washington,
and has had rendered the freight therefor,
yet he refuses to deliver the laths, but Is sell.
Ing and disposed OF them to the damage OF
the petitioner $4,000.
On motion Of Mr.. Wilson, the proper pro-
cess was ordered TO be Issued to attach the
vessel and cargo.