New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-05-26
THE COURTS.
NINE. LUCCA'S DIVORCE SUIT.

NINE. LUCCAS DIVORCE SUI.
THE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE OUT PART
OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT GRANTED.
Judge Donohue has just rendered decision
in the suit between Pauline Lucca and her huspaha'
Baron Won Rhade OF which the following Is copy:
In this case the facts upon which both motions depend
are simple. The parties were married In Prussia ana ~
March 87a the pa commenced an Sctoa 9on II, a
adultery and by decree (Which the General Term h
tanned in May 1873 that divorce. That case therefore,
now stands with decree against the deIendaht, nise
him from marrying again; third. giving tho custody OF
tho only child o. the parties to the painll Ohuer TN
leave given the plaintiff to serve supple com
plant she has added other things the allegation
that the defendant after she obtained her divorce pro
ceeded against her. and on full appearance by her az
torney has obtained from her divorce ON account OF
her wilfu and entire Abandonment OF him. Inc pam.
tiff now for order for perpetual stay agalh't
defendant on the ground that he has Obtained divorce
that there is nothing important to continue the suit
feniant's caprice and inire plaintiff, who Is an
artist. The defendant moves to strike out piantus
decree and her allegation in regard to his objects, In
regard TO the plaintiffs notion can see no ground ior
sustaining it, The decree that by her motion she seeks
to make final, prohibits the defendant from marrying
again. and while 1t may be SAID this only aneGts % ~
this state, the answer 49, no Is entitea 10 nav , a
removed II ne is not guilty Again, tha decree taxes
from him right To the custody OF her child IN hs
think the decree niicis on him loss that ne mas .lo
right to be heard before he bears. Again. tue Gcclee
prohibition IN the decree. II seems to me, Therefore
that the defeDlont, foreigner Appearing W our
for justice against sentence aSa'hst nun III ms ap
sence asks simple jusce. The Court, IL seems 10
me has gone far IL already III SUSTAINING ihe
decree to the it has To deny To this defendant
Inc simple justice he asks would be harsl. mat III
NAV bring trouble to the punth IS true, Dut hd sue
waited few days longer before sue acted on her decree
against man whom she did not know had Information
of H. II would have sayei her this trouble Agnln sue
has in a SUIT commenced after she got her Decree
npearcd aud failed set up her rights Oh her decree
here Can she be pernlttei after having an
onno-uniry 10 do So and apparently abandoning
mat right now attempt to reclaim 1t IL seems To me
not. Her motion must, heieiore De denlc. lne oVi
cInsion would seem follow that the defendants
motion must be granted Tho simple fact that tne
decree was opened try the alegi, OF adultery
AGAINST the defendant and to allow defendant TO aege
such against her prior to the decree Ia view OF TINS
cannot sec what effect the excepted parts can nave Ii
me palntf will aside her decree, she is AT liberty To
dn H. as by that she can leave the defendant Tree from
the fault charged, and from the disabilities winch her
Scrce nlaces him under IL supposed on the hear
Inc ,hat he decree might be modified but that the sta
into viii not permit and IL VIII hardly DO Tor the court
~ commit an release this party from her own
MISTAKES Motion to strike out granted