New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-07-25

Darties-hXed the amount OF t9e DOnd,
which was given and filed, and the trans
crpt has been accordingly made out and
filed in the Supreme Court. Wherefore the
] defendant says the court is without jurisdic-
ton and the rule should be discharged.
2. II this exception be Overruled, defend
ant reserving her right to apply to the ST.
preme Court to fix the maintenance OF Its
l-appellate jurisdiction. and the protection OF
defendants rights, says: That being and
! having been, as also claimed by plaintiff,
the wife Of plaintiff, she could not testify in
his favor, and no consent, compliance, let
ter or other expression Of hers, could IN
any case be used as evidence IN his favor
even a default can not be used against a
married woman in a suit for separation or
| divorce against her.
3. But defendant says she has never con-
scented to the divorce, much less its eXecu-
ton. In proof Of which she appeals to the
record in suit now on appeal hereIn-43i2-
| and files also the atfidaYits OF two ladies,
| residents Of the Fourth District of this
city, showing specifically that defendant
was sent North in December, 1871, with but
1925 in money and railroad passes to go
| and return, letters, ETC., and, as may be
further shown fully, as he, the plaintiff,
then urged, for the benefit of her health.
f. But defendant says. as the devoted,
| faithful and injured wife Of her usband;
| as the fond mother of a beauteOus child
verging On wOmanhOOd; as the cherished
daughter of hOnored parents; as woman,
! she could not have consented to or ac-
| uuiesccd in proceeding for divorce founded
on fraud, deceit and violence, and leave
New Orleans wrOnged, penniless and dis
| hOnOred.
The facts prove themselves to the judg
ment of the court; none hut an insane
could act thus.
In support, therefore, of the statement
| mi
and natural reasons she could not have ac-
quesced in the divorce or its execution,
! defendant EfICs atidavits of the servants
! who lived with them at the house No. 2OS
! Constance street.
-, Defendant prays that the rule may be
! discharged at plaintiffs costs, Tor the rea-
! sons above set forth.
Respectfully submitted,
JENNIE BRONSON HOLBROOK.
Among the deposit ons referred 10 i'll the
answer Of Mrs. Jennie Bronson HOlbroOk
are the following:
! AdeIine Garrison, colored servant, de-
| poses and says that she resides at No l3j
! Chippewa street, and that she is well &C
quainted with Mr.. Alva NJ. HOlbrOOk, and
! his wife, Mrs. Jennie Bronson HOlbrOOk,
! and resided in the family four or five years
! in their premises No. 20S Constance street,
| IN to Sunday, the thirtitth day of June,
| 1872, when she left of her own accord; is
| also we'll acquainted with Mrs. Eliza Jane
| Poitevent, known as Pearl Rivers to
! whom Mr.. Alva NJ. HolbroOk has very re-
! Gently been married; when witness first
! came to the house, about four or five years
| ago, Mr.. and Mrs. HulbrOOk lived very hap
! PLY together, until Mrs. Jennie Bronson
! HolbroOk said that Pearl Rivers" who
! had been visiting their house for sometime,
was coming between her and her husband;
! Pearl Rivers used to drive and ride out
yrri+b In m II n
tell her that it was not all right between
her and her husband.
After this Mr. and Mrs. Holbrook began
living unbappily together and were quar-
rplsome; Mr.. IIolbrook at that time often
rode out with Pearl Rivers and would
bring her TO the house in a carriage; this
continued up to December, 1871, except
while MI and Mrs. HolhrOOk were absent
from the city during the summer.
Mr.. HolbroOk came back during the sum.
mer of 1871, during the month Of August,
having left his wife at Mobile bay: some
weeks after, on her return from Mobile
| bay, the troubles between them became
greater than ever; finally he left the house,
| about two weeks before the madam left
in December, 1871.
The madam said he had advised her to 90
to the North for her health. After Mrs.
Holbrook left Mr.. HOlbrOOk came back to
the house. and "Pearl Rivers would fire.
quenUy visit the house during Mrs. Hol-
brooks absence.
Mrs Holbrool1. after their return from the
North in 1871, and when they quaTeled so,
told Mr.. iIOlbroOk, if he would not let
/ Pearl Rivers come TO the house any more
or to his office, or ride with her, or keep her
company, nor publish her poems in his pa
per, that She would forgive him the past
and live happily together thereafter, as they
Pearl
came between them. He promised to
do So but did not do it [ mean
by Pearl Rivers" Mrs Eliza Jane
POitevent, his present wife, and by the
madam mean his real wife, Mrs. Jennie
Bronson HUlbTOok. l never knew of any
difficulty between Mr.. and Mrs. HOlbroOk
except about Pearl Rivers" Mr.. and Mrs
HolbrOOk and Pearl Rivers" have all been
very kind to me. | never had q quarrel
with any of them; only thought Mr.. HOl-
brook had not treated the madam right,
and most any body else thinks the same way.
Mrs Martha A. Russell (the lady to whom
Mrs Jennie Bronson HOlbrook wrote from
New York., residing at No. - Chest
nut street, New Orleans, depOsed that in
December, 1871, she received from Mr.. A.
NJ HOlbrOoB railroad passes to New York,
with two hundred and odd dollars, with
letters of introduction to conductors and
hotel keepers, to be delivered to his wife,
Mrs. Jennie Bronson HOlbrOOk, which
passes and money and letters she delivered
to Mrs. Jennie Bronson HOLbrook He
said to her deliver these things to Jennie
He gave them to her in envelopes. She
(witness) does not know whether the tickets
were to 90 and return, or simply to go to
New York. She counted the money to her
(Jennie Bronson HOlbrOOk) and delivered
everything to her as directed.
Mrs. Ellen 4. Rogers, wife of William
Rogers, and daughter Of Mrs. RUSSELL re
siding at No. % Chestnut street, depOsed
that the tickets were to 60 to and return
from New York. She Mrs. Jennie Bronson
HOlbroOk) read them to me.
Counsel for A. NJ. HOlbrOOk objected to
the filing Of the dispositions as constituting
no part OF the answer. After considerable
argument, the court sustained the Obiec-
ton, to which Mr.. Howard took bill Of
exceptions.
The first witness called by plaintiff was
William Rogers. who testified that he saw
Jennie Bronson HolbrOok in New York
about February last, and that in cOnversa-
ton with her, she expressed herself much
pleased to hear that the divorce had been
granted; that she stated her intention to
reside permanently in New York, but said
nothing about returning to New Orleans;
that the name she went by he did not re-
member, but that it was not HolbroOk.
Certain letters purpOrtiug to be written
by Jennie Bronson HOlbrOOk to Mrs. Rus
sell, OF this city, were then submitted to the
witness, who, testitying that they were in
the handwriting Of Jennie Bronson Uo!-
brook, they were offered in evidence.
TMr. Howard objected to their introduce
ton as evidence, on the ground that they
were inadmissibIc-frs because they were
letters from the wife of plaintiff; second,
Il, L., Z E.3,V