The New York herald., 1869-03-25
sUPssm: C0vaT-raAL TEEN.
The tluacheEb0s Divorce Casc-Chargcs and
Counter Charses-Decrec Granted.
Before Judge Barnard.

counter Cuarxes-Uccrec NsruLteGs
Before Judge Barnard.
Henry n. QudcAx7ab0s as. Mary Genet Q,ucEe,,-
oos.-The plaintiff in this case Is well known ply
sican, having an extensive practice in tins CITY, the
defendant his wife for many years. The particulars
OF the complaint will be seen from the opening
statement OF Mr. LarOcque counsel for the plaintiff
to the jury. He said the defendant, DR.. Quacken-
bos, ply sican OF tins city, seeks decree OF d.
v0fce against his vile on the ground OF adultery. In
opening 0f this the least said OF the cir
cumstances the better and he would not detaln the
mltted at any length The complaint charges that the
defendant was married to the plaintIn In 1919; that
commencing October. 1860. and continuing to the
spring OF 1896 the defendant at various places which
will be described, committed adultery with one
Charles p Ware, and at various times between the
sprung VI 1850 and autumn Of 1861 the defendant
committed at different places adultery with one III.
j. Brent and that between the autumn OF 1851 and
adultery with one He1ry H. Palmer. '"T The eVdnncc
counsel said wonld be OF character which would
1nlly bear out the charge made in the complaint.
The defendant on the other hand, by way Of
nation. III an answer to the complaint, undertakes
to make counter charges against the plannir
alleging that he had committed adultery on various
occasions with various persons named IN the answer
The only foundation for this would be shown to be
that the plaintiff being physician he in the course
OF MS practice visited the various places named.
Pleadings being OF this character the Court made
an order settling two specific questions OF fact to be
submitted TO the jury. and on the ndlng thereon by
the jury the Court Will render such judgment the
Justice OF the case Will warrant The first specific
rage with the palntif has committed adultery; and.
second, whether the plaintiff since his marriage with
the defendant has committed adultery, as alleged In
The evidence on behalf Of the plaintiff was then
proceeded with.
DR.. Quackenbos 3 brother OF plaintiff testified
rhat he was Coroner OF Rockland county; he knew
Mrs. Quackcnbos, the defendant; also acquainted
with Charles T. +. Ware as well as hs brother; both
were visitors at his house; Charles Ware and the de-
fendaDt continued inmates OF his house for some
time the defendant occupied room on the south
nDs XVnrA fnn
east OF the same floor; while Charles Ware and the
defendant were at his house he saw both parties in
hung over the keyhoie; subsequently saw Mrs.
QuackenD0s leave the room; after the death OF
Charles Wares brother Mrs. Quackenbos occupied
the room OF the deceased; on one occasion witness
saw Charles Ware In bed In that room while Mrs.
Quackenbos was undressing In the same apartment;
the defendant was married IN Trinity church In 1S49
The deposition OF Mary Fletcher which was then
read, went on to state that she resides with her hus
band at Providence, X. L.. she knew the plaintiff and
the defendant for fourteen years. they resided at ar
lem and also In Amty street: 1t was at the house In
Harlem that she saw Charles Ware; on one 0cca-
sion when Ware came there Mrs. QuackenbOs was
taken with Mysteries, upon which Ware and Mrs.
Quackenbos went into q room together; witness saw
couch. and Ware having undrcssed Mrs. Quackenbos
put her TO he'd; he did all that a doctor could do;
witness ef1 ,Ge room leaving them togetnsr witness
there; during his stay he occupied Mrs. Quackenb0s'
apartments on the second noor while DR.. Quacken
bos the plaintiff occupied the rooms below; after his
departure Brent used to return some nights between
tel and eleven clock: witness let him In one night
having heard him whistle at the opposite side OF the
street: on previous occasions she had heard him
whistle in the same way; Brent went to Mrs. Quack-
Palmer used 10 come to the house In Amity street;
he was acquainted with Mrs. Qnackenbos, and both
time Palmer was afterwards wa Killed during the war.
This closed the testimony on the part OF the
plaintiff.
There was no appearance on tho part Of the a..
fendanr.
THF CHARGE TO THE JURY.
Judge Barnard tnen cnarged me jury. lie said:--
There Is nothing sad or narrowing TO the feel
fngs OF jury judge than to try a case for the
purpose OF dissolution OF the marriage tie between
man and his wife. The presumption Is that where
there are two persons who in love and affection
united themselves together In matrimony, that that
union Is TO be continued until death separates them.
And whenever any unfortunate event happens,
% apparently has taken place In the case,
10 the law for redress. When the palntitr charges
tnat his wife, having forgotten the duties she
70 society the duties she owes TO him, ana the much
higher duties she owes to her Maker; when
he charges her with being guilty OF q
crime for which the law says she should
be separated from husband the truth or falsity
OF which charges you are now summoned
here 10 determine, the ISSUE In consequence OF the
action OF the supreme Court, has been narrowed
commit the acts OF adultery charged at the different
times and pscesf and, secondly, did the plaintiff
Now, the second issue has been abandoned IN con-
sequence of the failure OF any person to appear on
Denhu vi ue uelenuant Leaving tnht aside, there-
fore the only and sole question for you to pass upon
H. are you satisfied that adultery has been commit
ted BY the defendant with the different persons
named IN the complaint-namely, Ware, Brent and
Palmert The bill charges that the adultery was
committed by the defendant with those different
parties at different pacesin Amlty street, In Car
manyile and In Rockland county. If you believe
the testimony on :he part OF the painttn-and II Is
not contradcted-he Is entitled 70 your verdict.
There Is no occasion for me TO call your
attention to any OF the facts In the except In
general way, and TO state that person who Is mar
RED, whether man or woman. has no legal right to
be found In the room. under suspicious crcum.
stances, with married or unmarried persons Of
Opposite sex say they have lawful right to be
Iounh together In room locked, undressed and
with towel covering the keyhole the inside.
Inc presumption Is that something Is wrong. But
altnough that would not constitute actual adultery
IN the eyes OF the law, yet continuance or such
unwarrantabe acts the giving OF secret signals at
nghf then attending upon the defendant In place Of
regular medical practitioner, undressing her,
putting her 10 bed and remaining In the room some
time was alleged In the Complaint were certainly
strong evidences that something was wrong.
The jury returned verdict for the plantlT and In
answer 10 the inquiry ~ 10 whether the defendant
was guilty found that the plaintiff had not com.
mltted adultery as charged by defendant