, 1874-07-27
AnIDEY VS.. AGIORK.

Tho DGctR1oM Ra Adverse to tho Conn
plxL1Mattts I.
During the early part Of this month. much OF
tho time Of Ju,gns Davis and Dsummond Wal
consumed in lstonIng to tho argumouts in tho
caso Of liuory Va. Amory, a full account ol which
was given in TIlE Ta1puSE. When tho decision
was rendered, tho judges docliuod to state It's
uaturo. and the papors in the case waro sent to
Madison. wloro tLoy belonged. Tho last num-
bor Of tho Legal Me,os. However, publishes tho
decision, which is Furnished 1t by tho repottor
OF tho District Court tor tho Eastoin Division Ut
WISCONSIN. II il w1itton by Judge Drnmlnonu,
aud IL us follows:
Tho princlpGl controversy III tin caso turns upon
tho effect oY ocrso Of tho Superior Court of tho City
OF New York. tn upon t1lt nlEt depcua tho rglA OF
thu plaintiff TO sustain tae bill thu caso, It bong
for,dra aelcy tne gronnd tnat slo at tho iae
Ioad dit Lac. Ws., in August 1858. III 1857, tho psau-
III prcsontcd eonulains g9atnst JauIs Aory IN tho
" Ss G oe S sg Yo4 a n @ 5 aa ts a aa
A.oa tu7etNsr aA wio that ho HID boen gull
ty Of adultery, aud aoEng for divorce on that,
Ja.uc Au,ory aunwcrod tho complaint and, au1on3
other thugs, tientcd tin niarriags.
facta and lo roporcd that tho plaintiff md Ja1nea
AIury had mt been married, a,ld that uho could not,
at tho tins Of the nnsoa marriage aks lanfuh CON-
baud, oua William a. Huanin, living. III Octea1or.
1sd3 tho Superior Court conilsncd tlo report Of tha
Ieferee, hu uncracd and natudgcd that tho not
aMd never had hecu tho w,fo Of james Auloly,, and
thHt sho rhoulA tako nothing by her oonlpatut and
that Judgment 10 entered tn fAvor Of tho said jones
Amory upon tho fnedts snd nK1tnst lcr.
vcraod nloded, but at tue uma Of nug tho bill In
Ais caso 1t was III fun force. .
/. We nte Of opinion that II any fraud rracccd
wrong done to hor by hor conllnal IN thu conduit Of
tbs diyorcu CuIt, III thu Superior Ctuf Of New York.
1t was OF aucl c1nractar na mt to change tho effect
Ct tho decree ot t!1 Court 1t docs no. satisfactorily
appear that ho suppressed my evidence within lts
kl!uwelgo bearing upon tho caao. And upon tho
said tat tho lnasn fact found by tho ascroo tbs it,
cree itaof, unwaEtanted. II her council act
In. in tho interest Of Jar8 AlnUry, slio ucgcs, 1t
n.ilst appcar u,rt hla wrongful pcs caaaed Iecrcc
which otherwise wond not lavo been made. Thoro is
nothing III tho oylece to chow TINT any misconduct
Of tho counsel altered tho result.
q. II nny eyest tt must appear + fact that tho
plaintiff WIS actua1ly tho WHO Of James A1nory. Un
dDuhtady Tho parties lived togethcr man eul wife
for eopO yeafu, from which, IN tho absence Of cher
evidence, uarrtaga might 10 inferred. But III this
chGe there Is such oller cydonce and independent OF
her statement there IL no HAsfnctory proof that
marriage ccralouy ever took place hotHcsn tho1n.
She was offered in tho caos In tho superior Court to
ucG1 aud It had to 10 determined by oter testimony
SIT rppo.rs that tho pla.ntiH not long after tito
dccreo rcElerod t tho Superior Court. hau luow
eIgo Of crrtalu facts, which, II trio wore calculated
u Gust Huapictun upon Tho conduct Of her counsel.
They Wero, at any rao, OF such character to put
her upon inquiry, nna require her to nsv diligence to
Rct rid OF thu o tho fraud charged upon
rr COUNSEL THIS quit WIS not commenced till March,
1871 and VIC thiuk sho should not have w1tod 10 long
befurs che nsltel for affirmative racf against thu
docrce u tho Superior Court of tho City Of New York.
No haYu not considered thp other objections 1uatlo
BY tho cotael Of taa defendants to tha rcaf prsyed
| for In Ibis I'LL.
| Tho hill will bo dismissed.
| Judge Dayis concuya in thoopinion. l.