The Hickman courier., 1874-05-23
THE BRINKLEY SUIT.
IL is Again Before the New York Courts
A New Version of an Old story.
Ne,v York Sun May 10

/ New Aork sun May L.
The case of Mrs. Elizabeth Brinkley,
who is suing her husband for divorce
q nlensa ct thOrO, and for alimOny, was
Yesterday resumed b fore Judge Van
Brunt and a jury. The defendant,
| Hugh Lawson Brinkley, is the rever-
sionary legatee of an estate worth ST.
500. 600. the property being principally
near Memphis, Tennessee, but Is de-
| pendent upon his father, during the lat
! ter's lifetime, for an allowance from the
estate. The plaintiff is the orphan
daughter of James S. Charles, an actor
and theatrical manager, who prosecuted
his business last in Memphis, and who,
at his death, left his daughter under the
charge of the Masonic fraternity. The
Masons adopted and educated her. The
story of the plaintiff is romantic, 1t not
true.
She frat made the familiar acquaint-
town of Iaka, Miss, on the ~ Mslffbh rJglhis
/ and Charleston railroad, celebrated in
ante-bellum days as kind of watering
place, whore Jefferson Davis and other
| southern dignitaries had summer resi-
dences, and where several educational
institutions were situated. At that
time, under the name of Lizzie Charles,
plaintiff was a teacher in a young la
dies college in Iuka. The defendants
ather had an elegant summer residence
close to the school, and festival occa-
sion, participated in by the pupils and |
teachers of the school in common with |
the neighboring gentry, brought plain |
tiff and defendant together. They had |
known each other in Memphis, but had
not had then a speaking acquaintance.
For two or three weeks, during which
young Brinkley fingered about Iuka. he
was assiduous in his attentions to Miss
Charles, taking her out riding and max
ing himself her escort on all convenient
occasions.
When the war came on later, Miss
Charles lost her occupation as teacher
in the south, and she came to New York
to secure the protection a. assistance
of some distant relatives. She obtain
ed employment here az a teacher in
families, and at length 10 the girls ,
school of Madame Bernard in Madison j
avenue. While she was thus engaged,
in April, 1864, young Brinkley came to
this city, and lost no time in renewing
the cou tship commenced in Iuka.
From April until June he was very at
-entive, and on the first suitable occa- ,
jon proposed marriage. Miss Charles !
the offer. While young Brink
ey was continuing his attentions as the
plaintiffs promised husband, he ex-
blamed to her that his father and fami
y expected him TO marry a southern '
leiress, and admitted that he had given .
he heiress and his friends good reason y
% believe that he intended to fulfill
heir expectations. But he said that .
lothing should separate him from the
)ride of his hearts choosing, and he
pleaded with plaintiff to assist him in o
for a time his intention to q
lefeat his fathers matrimonial project. T.
This appeal was strengthened by the c
that he was wholly depend I
Mt upon his father while the old gen a
leman lived, and that any intimation I
f an intention to defeat the parental
urpose would inevitably result in the y
onis or 'n,ag1sterial soiemnlzaIlop, anu
hould rest solely upon the ground OF an q
.0reement meeting the requirements OF
he law of New York, which makes s
marriage simply civil contract. With /
orns prepared on the spot the marriage /
ontract was consummated as he pro- j
,osed. and for more than five years the j
-ounp couple lived and Travelled as nus '
,and and wife. '
In 1871 the elder Brinkley tried to et- |
act a separation. He offered plalntlh
money TO go to Europe, where she was /
o have a monthly allowance. Under r
he persuasiOnS OF young Df1hkieJ sue 7
scented, but her positive declinatlon 4
0 sign paper saying she was not a q
life. broke eff this engagement. Some &
ime afterward the defendant deserted c
Ier in Memphis. She came to New {
York. and in due time instituted the
,ending suit. The case has twice been
o the ceurt of appeals. the defendant s
lighting interlocutory orders for the
,laintiffs maintenance. Both appeals ,
we're dismissed. {
About year ago Judge Van Brunt
,pent over ten days trying the case on
is merits, and finally concluded that
he issue of the fact was too important
a be passed upon by single man, and
ne ordered jury to be empanneled Tor
he purpose. The cross examination OF
the plaintiff had not been copcluded
when the court adjourned yesterday.
The plaintiff is small, fragile woman,
very sprightly and elegantly dressed.
The defendant was not in attendance,
and it was limited that he was absent to
avoid a commitment for contempt OF
court for disobeying an order touching
the payment of an allowance to the PLAIN
tiff to assist her IN the prosecution.