The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1870-10-07

u o. ~.
dcfen1ants venerable uncc, di1ering IN no particl
lar from HE previous statement, but tlis additional
question IL asked:
Q.-Do you know about the plaintiff being tesIdcut
OF lndianaP Al have icpcatedy heard and under.
saud that thc plaiuun went to the state Of lndaun
aoout two years tic purpose Of residing there
NOT POWER, BUT MAN.
As for the next deponen,, his name lie no, John
u. Power. n in the previous affidavit Ono AlbVb
y. Man ia the doponeut, before Francis Forbes.
%", %so SSSPaNS Nan S s9s p'Ss Of
nni upward oGeIpat'n' counselloratlaw' reriding
. DO you know no parties to this action. and how
9ns haye \C nj spSsa ITEM Al have snCwn both
. State What you Know about the defoRdSnt' 70.
g9g 70 1--we SI 'hs E esn Ahy t5s
di.agresInent between herself and defendant her
lSat Sue had aa Intense aversion % living W ia h,%
wcte obtained upon he occasion Of ces'ng her and
ross q prep,rlag hsr %oi6sr's Vii ard GeisyeGSr
with acp na here Sa%s1 went S 70 dcG
aud hsn. which was about two aud onehaif years ago
ctae se as her Counsel and nv soS at 1pSH nm
starcc acted as coaimnisratot with her and IN led
10 frequent Interview and conversations not only IN
regard her c,tate but also relation. toward Tie
by herself At the
GRANERcy PARK HOTEL.
and refused to hoil intercourse with the paiatid
sVn oa IN 9ehsl anon thesunyc OF over residing VITA
ter aversion lor hun ard cr nxod determination.
OWN 10 orcumsianc Which II e not ccssaiy for
M lnyn when . va. a9o9t two years ago ycnt again
Of hcr business Nor derarure has led frequent
Sp3 sc,are reerrsd a. b, r,ycr BEEN cHn qSSSi
dhd Is not Likely % be. ALBION J.. MAN.
BlGCs OR ploGs AGAIN.
Then comes attorney ELEPHANT Digs Tor BggsN
VINO says, being duly sWoin that he II iaiornuJ and
believes that the defendant In saiu cause /. non.
resident of the state oi luiianl.
no pres. iu tn, fcrsun Of the editor Of the S1iu
itiI Ca-tits. now introduced to the Court IN the
4
vas published three consecutive weeks IN his paper
IA weekly paper OF general circulation.
The dc. ndGnt a informed through lis paper that
IL she don't appear aud answer the VIII be DC.
tcrmned without nor
NEW CHARACTERS IN THE scENE.
The case could " be heard aud determined in her
edge, and her rcprc-tnhive appears IN the person
Oi an attorney IRON the centre vi the state, who
0cgs leave to call attention To u document he has
already caused to b. fled. Whoreupon the said al.
tJrney ~ clear sUnorOus vui,e pro ecjci to read
coddlneton, agt codiineton- Answer ami cross.
CoIdinrton agt Mary IL. Coidinston, divorce.
Of cIosscop amt says that FOR more than ten YEAR
She mas boon sensr1iel from her sad husband. Thlt
va - - Sd oy ne ,fs9 i3nt snat she gSaa no!
temper aud tastes TO have done 50 would have beci
All Sic therefore sbandoHee the aa anG has Sysr
since continued such aDandonmcnt sbe farther says
a.d that -he cannot eyer consent i've vita MIN She
dec.ee Of divorce and d...oiul,on OF the marriage
such other Itld as tAe e9iy OF the case may
The metropolitan attorney for defendant straight.
way o.e to bis ieot l"hcn this fealng Wa ended
and addressed the Court In his judgment, there
were incOntrovcrible reasons why this
DIVORCE SHOULD BE GRANTED.
There was naiuIa'--;hcrc was moral necessity
for The p1rgtun. growing out OF the mutual dcs re
OF Tie paries theAs' IVES to be divorced. hus-
band atd vic Who had livci apart eur, or even
i've yc'rs, might tOssby ue rtconcilcd; but in hs
Ju'Kuort there coud DC no hope oi bringing parties
toy, Etr WiO ngd been fcparat,d nearly dozen
years. For Mrs Co .dingtOn, be VAS qualified to
state that her deicliaiaIuon 10 be separated was
strong and unatctalie lie hld the honor Of the
defendants er-onal acquaintance. lie met i'm her
ID Paris. Indeed BE- o. -ht say that he called to see
her At nrr hotel N PaIIs and he had rom her own
Aps the 'toN oi her aversion TO plair III. SO. tie
'Ae de'th anu was Nul'Iy ana accomplished laay,
ana he prayed tue honorable Court that her cross
complaint ana petition be granted.
his was the only verbal plea that made in
The casc. TLo attorneys for The plaintiff hasUly in
ictei IN ansNer witch the c,rk proceeded To rea l.
Cola E'"n esa.0tt tviirs.ou -,t,mt tourt,
,u.s c.l.- O..1 aid dru g, sagh ard ey,y Allegation
'-'' '''' -''' -' So BlGSs ot pises3
In tho course u a d1y or two tie District A,tor.
ne. WAC, according To- the statutes NJ ludi4us Is
OBLIGED ~ ansAer al peutous ior divorce Nueie
INC d-i,"Ian' is a nonresident, submitted hs an.
sAer 10
THIS COMPLEX CASE.
The separation and deseruon are neither necessarily
n theory nor aSays ~ tuo iacls OF tue cases, ld,ut
i
or VIE leave IA" matrimonial ha1iiaton for tempo.
''-y uu'rV-e, intending 70 rttnru out Attet"1rd ic.
reen S.nr separate iuf consiie'aos ptrioi and he
Nald mad not CO. attributed to his wurs support, he
Withdrew the support ana wrote hcsa letter az ionows
TIE Letter.
when therefore, now cease to CIV" you any fur
read Tor snch settlement, winch TO n inm Tor
N.uf entire maintenance and expenses =. 10 al pay.
wish Whatever settlement, Is made between u. q be
better live happy possible separi'e than
70 lead an UNHAPPY NE together. ana show a Dad eX.
WHAT Is DEsERrIoSf
Perhaps the criterion to consider, whether the party
cha -ed with dcsorton CONTEMPLATED the renewal o.
w i ma Ike % ann yas S rage s
cable. and II parties separate By consent and one OF
he oiasr Tciuses return; Or 4 they separate for
cause, and the cause T. removed, 6ut ono Of them Dc
clnce 10 renew cohHbilauon or, II wife, having IN
uer husband without cause, comes bacN ~ HIN and he
- lis rs VIE, 10 renew ,6S cahaSistaS a.
sLs iel eat ttr lr9rosal me iuli stauoy eioa not
II iIs e.fe lrisd CcodonFton vs.. Coddlneton), the
D. ty .ep.rutoa was NE day 0. NJ aIanlOnno ~
--s rl1 hHs eyer zinc, ltcn VoH'urcd. 1ht cuu-, gi
he ,eiaratoa aLa apaud5ume WAS tse utter dss.l.
TEE testimony or Tue UNCLE.
Horc n. net OF abandonment OF tie PLAINTIFF by de-
..H.IHf .s distinctly proven.
Iu. witness, Man, Che confidential alyls of the de
..ta -.aie- thl upon her return from EUROPE a'out
tH. ! auA.i ItH ago, tuc Ttuhitcu turlt ttf IlI
..tu.Y-, Ttslf.u. by herself at the G!umCrcy Hotel
u"i fHsru 10 hl any intercourse witt the phluuh,
tI4 t.-"4 turt H..f or .I trta with amy per. ia
u.- b.u4iu.on INC tuyoct Of residing VITA him his
RIig, Dec 81. l.r u.trr Ryritlpu 10 hm, &c, and
SONG o.A 10 L4Iolc sJou l.er, aud remaining there
o,,, so repeatedly submt tha, ms conduct OF
the a.. lru.aIt T,I n- 10 even treat with Ir-sou
900 10 LHfui %. IlaHt. pu me t4I.a oI lVlu- with
uul, bad ihr trl.atIlu been t.Mlc4Cc4 AUD tyu-
lLutu % a.. -,.AtI', NuLl4 CpAsilt4.e
1H- ABANDONMENT
contemplated by the statute. In TINS case the net -
abandonment o. pIONCuaLI the frequent and pt rl-t'ut
t...eI4c!t, 81 ne dCcLdaat that she never wood
ave WIA the p!ainuu
THE EFFECT on THE judge.
Here ls a complication OF evidence that doubtless
must have struck the mind Of the presiding Judge
the mild complaint OF the lOngsuiering plaintiff,
tho nature Of his residence in Blank county, and SO
on, but his Honor's decision rests plainly upon ono
point, tho Eugulatiiy OF an answer aud crOsspeti'
ton when the Witnesses for the plaintiff are the
unc'e and confidential friend and lac legal adviser
OF the defendant.
II was new feature IN evidence and, for that the
defendant DID not use a in her own case, the Judge
aeciicd against her and in favor OF the planLn,
GIVING MN TUE ByoRcR.
Thus Il 10 Gled
Jefferson Coddinrton agt. Mary H. Coddington-