, 1870-06-27

FEACp IN D1roRcE NOT PROVEN.
Sophia Podo1l '. Guarus PodolL This was a bill
an Indiana court, Sitting at Valparaiso in Porter
County. lEdtan1, On the Eraund Of fraud The
tiei; ntGnt has since married WOMAN Of consiI-
The decision u the Court was rendered. decln-
MT Proven. the decision was as foliows:
Tlls is bill died by Sophia fodoil, late the wife
., acs,tss redol gFsgng 1es deere setting sat e
the State "f Indiana, and for other relief; Wit,
fey maintenance and suppo1t The ground on
divorce was rendered in Indiana, upon frAndu-
iert state Of proofs that a that The proof as to hls
residence In tndianA vas fraudulent; It Was not ;
rse decree thai she had entered her appear
y attorney, IN fact she never did enter her
eae IT, VS. ,dn1e ~ ~ Es amoan5 TT
-" legations Of her hushand, In re-
!, made In that bUl, were false and
save discaIsied ali Of that eyidence,
to lie il q very obvious 1eason,
light to 50 behind decree ten-
- In the State Of Indiana, upon an
there was III appearance, to tIu-
lenee that have had occasion to
evidence ;oacatng The appearance
Mr. Jones'. who pu1ported to be her attorney, as
be himself sweaTs, sometime In advance Of the
t1sal IN that case, rseeiEed letter from person
peafs, M1a Podoli had lived, and TheTe sie had
5s 1ones SsE o1
made defence, cross- examining Witnesses and
endeavortng y prevent decree, but .
10 impesch the transaction, so far as relates to the
appearance bT attorney, Is the testimony Of Mrs.
1vdo!l that she never WTute any such letter, The
1esf = sof forthcoming, but has been lost, and all
there Is proved before me Is the contents Of the
leaer: The tenor OF the letter WIS such as wonld
lluye been written by Mrs Podoli Or some one in
hpft1 t1tafhEt nt1$E ch ror75f hot+a hmm
wrinsR By man OF ordinary shrewdness in the
ccne.zRion OF fraud. Hal II been tnd.ted ia his
eanne ,e,t Ell We Ssye sh5sTS nsTv aoa "a
one SIDE HRS. Pcdo1ls staiement that she did not
trdfte the letter At al. aud on thu other We have
circumstances thas- l thing, ere very convincing
thAt Ehe did write the letter. 1t was at that time
satisfactory to the attorney aud It vas satisaeto-
ft,her With ether evidence IN the case as to the
character Of Mra Podou for Huthfulness, so far
~ it may he inferred, am inclined to think she
Is stating Hhat Is not tine II reference to the au-
tfuTshtp Of tho letter. IN 49,.
Al iii events, do not think It Is proven that she
entered under the circumstances OF this case. do
hot think it would be subscribing the ends Of JUS
ice 70 set aside the decree appears that Podoll
there again married to person presumed to be a
ftputahle tcIson, and considering all the disastrous
consequences to Tits second vic, and, possibly, to
children that E11y have been or may be born,
think mnst refnse the relief asked IN the case
The inclination Of my minds rather to say, as to
a. 'es e a ~ en Tns
charges arc not sustained.
MILK BCs1SEss.
EAf1h 1. GnEtIpe and Earn Z. Peck =, Wtllau
Dey1ne Action BY womaD, married. and a man.
married, 70 persons not OF the partnership, but
themselves partners, to recover the price of the
Their partnership having become dtstastefp11 they
scl4 out. They were nor paid upon the sale, Yer
dicf for piaiuttils. Damages assessed at s7aa.
+FTf