The New York herald., 1871-03-02
MIXED MATRIMONY.

Two Cross Divorce suits and Curious Com.
pexity Of Counter Cbarges-One Divorced
Husband Marrying the Other Divorced Wife
and the Second Divorced Husband said to
Have Eloped with the Second Divorced
Wife-Applfcntion Set Aside the Decree
of Divorce in One Case.
motion made yesterday morning, before Judge
CardoZo Of the Supreme Court, to set aside a
decree Of divorce, presented striking exem.
phfca.lon Of some of the peculiar vagaries OF
the divorce suit business, as well as the pecu-
liarly free and easy views and practices OF
some people touching marital obligations. AS
TO the motion, that was simple enough and
made in the usual way. Mrs. Elizabeth Miller
had been divorced from John Miller her husband.
She claimed to have known nothing about the pro-
ceedings Tor the divorce until after the decree was
granted and as a deeply injured woman besought
the Court, through counsel Of course have herself
set maritally right. Underlying this simple appli-
cation, however was complex network Of facts
and allegations OF unusual character. the unravel
ling Of which Is essential to make the matter clear.
The
sTRIKINGLY SALIENT FEATURES
in the case are the divorces on the same day, and
then one OF the divorced husbands marrying the
other divorced wife, while the remaining divorced
husband as alleged, eloped with the remaining
divorced wife. Preliminary to this, Of course were
counter charges Of adultery and spicy details Of ev.
Esn noSe First the SUIT Of
-"AAsS1s
THE FIRST DIVORCE CASE.
The affidavit OF the painti IN this shows that
five years they lived peacefully and happily, por-
ton OF the time at No. ly7 avenue and the remain.
was employed In upholstery establishment in
University place, receiving salary Of twenty-five
dollars week, from which sum, he says he paid his
wife nineteen dollars week. They had two
children, the elder six years OF age and
the other aged three years Living them
his wife, Rosina Gross. The TWO families
visited back and forth great deal Mr. Gross Stood
thought the world Of Mr. Cross but he soon found
that Mrs. Miller also thought the world OF him. Mr.
Gross became ,a very requent visitor, and came
ut his work. Soon they got to going out evenings.
He reconstructed with his wife, but to no purpose.
but Mr.. Gross still continued to come. Finally Mrs.
Miller went away and remained absent Tor four
with MIR. Gross, as his wife, at house In stanton
street. street subsequently ans she went away and re.
r him. he brosh was for TOO nnrce much
against his wife. Mr.. Charles A. Jackson was an
pointed referee and he reported in favor OF a
divorce, which was granted on January 81 1871.
Mrs. Miller denied the allegation of adultery pre.
ferred against her. She says that her husband
SO that he loved Mrs. Rosina Gross and meant to
marry her, cost what Il would. Her nve months
Detroit ana there lived cut as servant, and That
her husband knew wnere she was. she
n aTag 's 1o eng Of os me 70 give
then back to her husband to live witn and he
refused 10 have anything to do with her saving
that ne had been divorced from her. and had mar.
ried Mrs. Rosina Gross, who also had got divorce
from her husband. she alleges, further. that she
cannot read or write, and was told nothing OF the
divorce proceedings. She concludes her afrilIayit
by the statement that she understood that Mrs.
Gross gave him a sewing machine ana $500 to
marry her. with the understanding that they would
go to Germany and ere spend the remainder Of
their days. And now we come TO
THE SECOND DIVORCE SUIT.
This was brought by Mrs. Rosina Gross on the
charge q adultery between Mr.. Gross and Mrs.
Miller. These parties were married in Baden Ger.
many, on January 27 1853. She charges tnat on the
23d OF August, 1870, he eiOped with Mrs Miller He
told her previously that he was bonnd to have Mrs.
Miller, ana that, as for herself, he would not cut
her down from the gall0ws IL he saw her hanging.
Hearing the testimony IN this case was referred
to Mr.. Jackson, who reported IN favor OF divorce
ana decree was accordingly granted by Judge
Sutherland on the same date as the hrst divorce
suit January u, 1871. From what has been written
1t u easy to see the
PRESENT STATUS OF THE CASE.
Mrs. Miller, already stated, denies all the ale-
cations made against her, and claims TO have been
q true and faithful wife, There was prolonged aruu.
ment by the counsel on both sides, which ended in
the Court taking the papers aud reserving its de-
CtHI0e