, 1869-08-21
4 CELEBRATED CASE.
Tho Suit Of Frnnk Leslie for Divorce
Denied by Judge isrndy-Hc is Re.
quIred TO Pay HE NiTe $50 Per
Week Alinony indefinitely.

From the Mex Io.k 1i',ts, 1u2ns: II,
The fanoua case Of III. Frank Leslie, the pub
commenced nearly two yeAts ago, has Al Inst
practically re2rhed I terHlIa.on- Tie dectsion
q Judge Brady. yesterday. wss In the second suit
payment ot costs aud allowances Incurred IN tho
int. AI. and Ats. Leslie were married Ia
a hsp eaS ia p5t IL $.h ne nef u
to the time Of the commencement Of the SUIT
In the original sult for divorce the decision was
adyerse to Mr. Leslie, sud he was required TO pay
hia wife al allowance Of 80 por week. Nj. Lealle
appealed frum this declson to the General Term,
and after e.3laszsa argument = dscistoa T21 ftl-
majority OF tie cour. Oa tn, occ4a1on two
c!abornte decisions were written By Judges BFahy
and Barrett. exhansttnz MI he law on the sap-
ansa etalle argument, aud the spirit Of equity per-
yadioErhetn. Subsequent to this decision the
platinum v,,Sozss Sosat ,he prs9 s
oualy made BY tho Court In conformity with rell-
ecttted pgecedeuts; and, after hexr.nz a1yumcn.4
pytng the right Of the plaintiff 10 discontinue
without tile payment Of the allowance legitimate
~ incurred consequent npoa The commencement
apond with the income o! the pl2!nud, which Was
ahcHu ou the proceedings TO Amount 70 slno, 00a-
The following extract from the Judges opinion,
foT bis decision:
at Is saiI IL Daniels on Practice u. 7a1. fourth
London et1,} that HheD there has been any pro-
ceedin4 IN the case which has 87ven the Defend
ant right against The plat11tn, the latter cannot
d.m,ss his BIZ, OF course The cases cited TO siS-
snie @ IS ss sound ohe ID squt5, Il ii 70 no. in com
mon law cases. Whtre an action Of Divorce L.
commenced against ~onlao, m application foE
alImonJ and counsel fec W,l! be ealeT1ained, an'i.
II granted, the payment Of both DaJ bo en-
forced By the process Of the Court against tho
properly aad peEson q! t1s q E5 dne oIas5 70
regulated by statute, anI as long as the aGiton
continues tho al!moDg Is az i9c.lental expense
q IT. befoie & esa fne s
to 1t accrues ppon the entry Of the order allowing
It, and The power 70 eniorse lts payment aftsss *
plaintiff In paying i. There ars familiar 1nes as
to the right and Its enforcement which It Is rot
necessary to demonstrate by reference % any
suit Of an order or tnlariocutoEy lscree+ Which
Is In It's natutc Judgment 70! the paJncnt Q!
ae en1 n q, 10 aep5Sea 11
.ss5a aftsI A. nra sc n".rs 11. " sssa ,.
mennc.ns ihe action the pLalnun suhleets
himself voluntarily TO the power u the Court 70
compel him to MAKE suitable proElnon for me
support uI htz wife and tho protection OF her
HGhts; and when the power Is exercised ne s se.
icyeI from The oo'igason o! Furposting her BY any
ether nsn tnq;e y lnn ots'
that the husband Il liable for the support and
maintenance Of his wife, and i Is reasonable la
silnony, be VIII be compelled 70 ny II equiva-
itut IN j tllrcfeat mode. But, whether this be 50
OF not. when an oEde1 II nAde Gtant;n9 24mony u
becomes part Of tie costs or burden OF the &C
ton, und Al lorg as the erder rcuaAns GnrefoEed
55 ISa.o15 ta:E5 ths oniS4!sa sna, Of msas ,as
sud.n he seon,tnuanee xs.cs be sought % periec.
nu,nsy. Having arrived At this conclusion upon
pecessary 10 Tefer 70 the proposition that, IS the
defendant has bought Affirmative relief, tac plan-
TN cannot discontinue The asso3 II aoy r., eTen,; @
upienabIe. the Defendant meant 10 become an