New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-06-28
BRONSON HOLBROOK IMBROGLIO.
Mrs. A. M. HOIbrOOk Against Jennie
BrOnsOn-BOth sides of the Story.

opening of the case Of Holbrook against
Jennie Bronson, his divorced wife, in the
meantime listening to the details of a part
nership case, undergoing the pangs of argu-
ment, which related to the appointment of
a receiver to some unsettled commercial
affair.
The case opened in the motion of j. B.
Howard, of counsel for Jennie Bronson, to
fix the amount of bond required
Here another pause took place, and the
argument in another case commenced.
A buzz of eager interest spread round as
Pearl Rivers entered the courtroom and
took seat near her relatives.
The act of donation as well as the re-
vocation of that act, with all the inscrip-
tiOns were introduced in evidence.
The supplemental petition of Jennie
Bronson, reiterated her former prayer and
went on to say in answer to the motion to
set aside the order granted by Judge Leau-
mont, that at the time the order was ap-
piled for she was in confinement in the Par
ish Prison, and totally unable to give a
bond, had there been one required; that
her incarceration in prison was the act of
A. M. HOlbrOOk, who is directly responsible
for whatever irregularity may be claimed
in the issuance of the order aforesaid; that
although not compelled by law, she has,
since her release from prison, given bond
with good and solvent security, and asks
leave to file this supplemental petition as
part Of the record together, that the pro-
cess and orders reissue nWnc pro t,tne and
without prejudice on the petitioners giving
bond.
The petition was admitted and the bond
fixed.
The points only are given of the argument
in the summary below:
The argument of Mr.. Mott, of Semmes g.
Mott, counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Holbrook,
was first devoted to a consideration of the
question, "DOes the law authorize divorce
without the previous separation Of one
year - The late law amending the former
law touching divorce was read. Counsel
held that the late amendment abrOgated
the year separation law; that it was as effec-
tually wiped out from the statute book and
abolished as if it had never existed. When
the cid law was repealed it was lost. Until.
this recent amendment the law of divorce
was unknown; it was a separation from bed
and board, and such thing as divorce
UincuLO n1GtrimOnii and its declaration was
not known in the sense of the common law.
The divorce of A. NJ. HOlbrook was decreed
under that law, and after the expiration of
the proper delay the court rendered the
judgment OF divorce; and at that time the
court was convinced and satisfied of the
matrimonial excesses of the divorced party
and the conduct of one of them toward the
other so as to render their living together
Notice of judgment was
Sheriff g return attests it-and
that the divorced wife received the notice is
proved by the letter written in acknowledge
ment of that fact. The minute Jennie
Bronson left the State without consent of
court she had no right to alimony. The ser
vice was good by letter. BARRIERS Supreme
Court Reports, 81, 3O6.) The judgment was
in by the defendant; for when |
the notice was received by Mrs. Bro nson in |
New York she sat down and wrote a letter, |
in which she said: Il am glad l am free |
from you forever l now tell you l have |
abandoned the name l have borne, and |
have taken another" This was as
perfect an aequlescence in the judgment as
f she had used the words and complied
with the forms. Appeals are allowed with
n thirty days. More than thirty days have
apsed, and, after acqui escence, 1t is rath-
II late to ask devOlutive appeal. If the
Judgment of the court was rendered, it is
,Owerless to alter it, annul it, or set it
lside; it devOlves only on the Supreme
Court, and where the time for appeal has
apsed, however, there can the Judgment
'e altered, and it is only on the ground of
raud that application can be made to an
lul the Judgment. The mere allegation of
raud is not sufficient. There is nothing but
vague allegation that her former husband
procured her to leave the city that he
night take an advantage of her and pro-
ure a divorce it is disproved by the facts,
which attest that she was cited to appear,
md that after judgment she had been in
ormed of it.
The branch of the argument relating to
he donation of the house No. 2O8 Constance
treet was taken up by Mr.. Mott. TIE act
+ donation was read; the revocation in
which the property, No. 2O8 Constance
treet, was taken back. But by the law of
louisiana, all donations of the husband to
he wife become revoked by the simple act
separation from bed and board.
The order should not have been granted
avit, bond, or other guarantee, and Mr..
EOlbrOok was condemned to pay alimony.
t is null, because the opposite party has
ight to be heard and to be notified, and
as right to. show the facts. This was not ,
one. The order was er-parte.
1t is already known that Jennie Bronson,
n the seventeenth, made murderous at 3
ack on the occupant of the same house
-hich she asks shall be assigned her as a
Omicile, and which, it is implied in the Op
Osite pleadings, that she, finding her own z
Ouse possessed by an opposing party, had J
right to commit violence. Are the mis- P
about property and its |
to be settled in this wayl
The counsel then went on to show the
1thOrity for Mr.. HOlbrook to revoke the "
OnatiOn.
Mr.. j. B. Howard held that the order for 1
imony was based on good and substantial 4
divorce proceedings were il
Efficient to authorize such an order. In N
,lation to the donation, it is admitted that Y