National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-10-09
THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT-GENERAII TERM.
Chief Justice Cartier and Justices Wylie and
Macarthur sat In bGHe yesterday, and were en-
gagged as follows:
Mercer VS.. Mercer. This is an action for divorce
brought here by the respondent from a decree in
the court below in his favor The petition states:
l. That petitioner resided in the District for two
years before filing the petition. 2. Her maiden
the respondent, William Van Ingen Mercer, In
this city. 3. Three children were born to them,
ofwhom two are alive, aged respectively about four
and two years. 4. For four years respondent has
not furnished t2OO all told, for support Of the
family. During this period he has often been
sober has offered her personal violence. s. Dur
ing The same period he has spent for himself
money she has given him for the family Is supports
has received money due petitioner while the
family we're without food, spent it himself and
then denied receiving it, since September,
and neglected to use it for family. She lent him
in April, 'T3, $50 she had laid aside for q trip
North with children, but though he gave his note
before leaving Washington this spring, as above
set forth, your petitioner emptied silver, &C., Of
hers that was in the trunks Of the said William
V. /. Mercer into her own leaving his for his own
use; some days after the servant handed your Pc
titioner the key Of the former silver trunk; your
petitioner directed her to give II to Mr.. Mercer,
as It was his; he muttered some curse and walked
away, and after the servant was gone struck your
petitioner in the face; she did nothing at the time
and said nothing hoping not to call the attention
of her daughter to this brutality; but after he had
gone the little girl spoke up, MAMMA, did you
fer's life has been darkened BY his cruelty, &C.;
she seems constantly afraid Of violence; said to
her recently, "Why, mamma, ladies don't strike
YOU" s. Alleges respondent has made threats
against her; sworn he would have the children,
&C., and has some idea Of obtaining possession Of
property he expects to come to petitioner. She
therefore prays divorce UiRcUlo, alimOny, &c,
sc.
There being no appearance on the record, de.
cree pro coRfeSSo was taken October IT, 1872, and
gsiOn iReupd to F F. Rettg N Y. to take
dispositions. These were returned and hled No
vember 4, 1874. November !, respondents coun-
sci having shown that an appearance was not en-
tered through Misunderstanding, the decree pro
con TesSO was struck out leave given to file answer
and time extended to take testimony; the court
refusing to suppress the dispositions taken by
Belts, and giving leave to respondent to crOss-ex
anime the witnesses-a privilege Of which he never
awaited himself.
Subseouently before another Justice respondent
moved to suppress these dispositions and failed.
The answer denies that he has only furnished
MES he has ever been grossly intoxicated, though
he does not deny that he drinks moderately; denies
offering any personal violence to petitioner.
own right; has frequently furnished him money
which he has not spent on self or lost, or squan-
receipt Of money belonging to petitioner.
The STS2 mentioned went to use Of family
and to pay previous debts; he admits owing pc
own, and mas never suffered for want of money;
he never struck petitioner in anger; never offered
her any violence nor injured her health; has al
ways been q good and atfectiOnate husband, sin
SPITE of any little disagreements they may have
had;' May 0, 1873, petitioner left with her chill
full consent TO return in the fall; he went to the
depot with her atfectionate parting took place,
and she wrote him that month two afectiOnate
letters; knows reason for her doing as she did;
is willing TO receive her on her return; thinks he
has q right to the children; may have said so;
denies making any threats OF illegal action; his
business is that OF claim agent; hasn't earned
more than 5000 year for the last four years; he
denies she has stated any ground Of divorce.
The petitioner here is the appellee. The decree
is in favor Of the appellant, except that the petit
tion is dismissed without prejudice, and the re-
spondent has costs to pay. There is no assign
taken from the decree made Diminishing the bill.
The case was argued by Mr.. L. P. stanton for
the appellant, and General MuZZey for the ap-
Frederick P. Sawyer VS.. Joseph Weaver. This
case comes up on an appeal from decree of the
Equity Court. The facts are set forth as follows
On the 10th Of April, 1874, the plaintiff filed his
bill, alleging that about the 18th Of July, 1873, he
sRreed to purchase from the defendant certain
ion, for the exact sum Of s2O, 900 the same prop
erty being incumbered by debt Of 5000, and no
more; that the payments were to be e 600 In cash.
$4,000 on the first day Of January, 1874 IS 900 to
discharge a mortgage on the premises held by
one Harvey North, but after the purchase he
found the claim of North to be more than Is, 900,
by interest having accumulated thereon to the
aggregate amount Of 81 800. The prayer Of the
bill was that said sum Of 81 800 be deducted from
the amount yet remaining unpalO On plalnIlu's
note given to the defendant, for an injunction to
prevent the negotiation of such note and for de-
cree for e. 800. in case the note has already been
negotiated. The case was argued by Mr.. Benja-
min Davenport and submitted.
Wiley vs.. Strong. Appeal dismissed for want
Of jurisdiction.
SPECIAL TERM - Mr.. JUSTICE HUM
PHREYS.
This court was engaged as follows yesterday:
Olmstead vs.. Clagett. order perpetuating H.
junction.
Long VS.. Long. Death Of defendant suggested.
/ In re. Jos. HertZog. Order Of adjudication in
bankruptcy.
Milliken vs.. Charter Oak Company. Order dis
charging restraining order.
johnson vs.. johnson, and SeitZ vs.. Seitz. De-
cree taking bill for confessed.
bill on terms.
Nee VS.. Nee. Order OF publication.
Moore VS.. Moore. Leave granted to amend
bill.
The court then adjourned until Wednesday
next.