Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-05-15

second Trial Of the Brinckley d.
soree suit-The so.CalIed wife Tells
Her SforF.
New York Tribune, May %.

Her story.
New York Tribune, May ls.
One of the most interesting MARIA
tives which have been brought to light
through the medium of the divorce
laws is again reviewed in the second
trial of, the Brinckley divorcesuit, which
began yesterday in the Supreme Court.
The first trial In June last was held be-
fore Judge Van Brunt without jury,
and the Judge was of the opinion that;
as the evidence could be narrowed
down to very small compass, and as
the testimony was of very conflicting
nature, the Court should have the aid of
jury in determining the issue, the
main question being, were the two ever
married? So the case is. now found
again on trial in the Special Term, this.
time with twelve men to decide the is-
sues of fact, and Judge Van Brunt to
determine the legal points of difference.
The entire day was taken up-after a
brilliant opening address by Mr.. Brown
lin the examination of Mrs. Brinck-
ley by her counsel, Messrs. Brown and
Beach, Mr.. Anthem cross-examining on
behalf of Mr.. Brinchey. The court.
room was filed with lawyers, and the
utmost interest was manifested In the
story of the delicate lady who occupies
the position of plaintiff. She is not
particularly short, butseerns very slight
ID figure, and has noticeably lady-h
bearing. Her face is thin, her black
eyes are large and pleasant, and
l. h., c<r fr-ar a
for the pale face it SURROUNDS. She
was styhshly dressed and appeared,
perhaps, no better advantage than on
the former trial During the progress
of the other trial Mrs. Brinckley wept
escitedly, and appeared too aggitated
to bear the test of examination; yes
terday she told her story with = COM
posed face, and with an equaniraity
that could not be shaken, although she
remarked to an acquaintance, after the
days proceedings, that she was exceed
ingly nervous. She left the impression,
however, on the audience of being, In
the yernacular of her own South, a
fright smart wittess," and gave evil
dence of the generous education she
had received. Mr.. Brinckley was not in
court, but will probably be present to-
day. The history of this case has been
told many times. 1t hinges on the
alleged marriage of Hugh Brinck-
ley to his wife, Elizabeth, by
private contract and subsequent life
with her as her husband. He claims
that his relations with her were 1here-
tricious, and this is the point at issue.
The first action was brought by her In
the Chancery Court of Memphis for a
limited divorce (which cafries with it
the idea of marriaee), and for alimony.
The Chancellor refused to allow alimo-
ny, and she discontinued the suit to
bring it here. Judge Barnard granted
an order allowing her SIS week ali
mony and 81 COO to defray che expen-
ses Of her trial. Brinckley refused at
first to obey this order and appealed.
The order was confirmed, and Judge
Barnard meantime granted the lady
another order striking out Brinckley's
answer and adiudgihg him guilty OF
contempt. Brinckley afterward purged
himself of the contempt by paying up
his alimony in arrears. The present
case is the same as first begun-a suit
meRSa ct hOros