The New York herald., 1870-11-06
SUPREME cuuRT-speclAL TERM.
Novel Divorce Suis-Thfrty ThOussaa Dol
Inrs for a Divorce.

Novel Divorce Suis-Thirty Thousand Dol
iars for a Divorce.
An application was made yesterday before Judge
Jones, OF the superior Court, aside decree Of
divorce. the details OF which develop some rather
novel features In connection with the mod,es ope-
randi OF procuring divorces in tins city.
PARTIES TO THE SUIT.
Albert Peck was married July .. 1850, 10 Mrs.
Matilda 8. Wilson, at Washington, ID. O. He was
then, As he is now, wholesale manufacturer OF
paoer collars at No. ia Centre street. HIS wife was
O poor widow, with one child 10y her former
husband She is sun beautiful, and must have
been more so at the time OF this second
marriage, though then twcnty-eght years old.
He claims 10 be younger than she, though ths claim
is denied by her, she asserting that he Is three years
older than bcrseh. Whichever statement may be
correct. IL is certain that he looks more youthful
though IN saying this ii cannot be said thar looks
Ike man very likely on account OF his personal ap-
pearance TO exercise dangerously fascinating IN
fuence on the opposite sex. He has red coarse.
shaggy hair and musiachc, and a pale, sallow com
plexlon, while she has raven black hair ana raddy
cheeks the latter possibly, however, the effect OF
careful attention to the cosmetic art
DISTURBANCE OF MATRIMONIAL FELICITY.
Their married lie passed on for awhile very
smoothly. lie took her to MIS- mothers, who, together
with his sisters treated her very kindly they visit
ed other relatives and were received With the same
consideration. Al length the mothcr-in-law took y
dislike TO her. The son wanted money for his bush
ness and applied 10 his mother, when. according 10
the allegations Of the Defendants counsel she pro-
missed 20 give nim $4,000 II he would get divorced
THE DIVORCE OBTAINED.
;, Applying to Mr.. House, the lawyer who adver-
machinery for procuring the divorce was set III
motion. or course to effect this result 1t neces.
vile guilty OF adultery. THIS was easily done. Mr..
Pratt bookkeeper ior tho plaintiff, testhed TO the
defendant committing adultery with HIM, this test.
mony being given before referee. Upon this "a
judgment OF divorce was granted. The date or the
decree OF divorce was November 10, 1909.
MATTERS INTERMEDIATE.
AS alreaOy stated the subject came before Judge
Jones on application TO set aside this decree OF di-
vorce Lengthy arguments made by the op-
posing counsel, togeth with reading the papers In
the and the correspondence OF the parties; the
arguments, papers and correspondence setting forth
the facts, or rather allegations, given above.
multiplicity OF other allegations also made
known, chief of these was that pending the pro-
ceedilgs for divorce, the parties To the suit con.
tinued TO cohabit as before and also alterward at
intervals up TO the 18th OF last October II ad.
the divorce, rather made opposition to the pro-
ceedlngs IN the case so rs TO enable her husband to
get the promised $4,000 and on his promise, after
obtaining the money, u marry her again.
now THE CASE CAME INTO COURT.
The promised veil OF secrecy was rent asunder
BY the defendant MI. Peck accor ling 10 the story
told on her side, refuses to carry out his contract
and make her second time Mrs. Peck. Dissatisfied
with this result, and feeling herself an injured
woman, she caused the application 10 be made 70
set aside the decree OF divorce.
THE ARGUMENT AND RESULT.
There was little else In tho argument on either
side, long drawn out, as II mutually was tnan the
allegations already stated For Mrs. Peck il was
Claimed that the divorce was procured through col.
lusion and fraud and therefore should be set aside
Sne denied the allegation Of adultery, and TO show
that this allegation WAS groundess, IL was stated
that Mr.. Pratt was still in the employ OF her husband
although he claims 10 have caught them nag,antd
delcto For Mr. Peck 1t was urged that the adultery
was committed; tnat the reason he su retained Mr..
Pratt in his service was because he thought him the
one seduced and not the seducer; that sfle divorce
was obtained IN the regular and legal way, and that
there was no defence made because none could be
made. The letters submitted embraced quite an
extensive batch, but very commonplace and
contain nothing worth publishing. AT the close Of
the argument the Judge took the papers.