The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1874-05-28
THE BRINKLRY SUIT.
IL is Again Before the New York Courts
A New Version OF an Old story.
New York Sun. Nay II.

] new 4oEk sun nay IL.
The case Of Mrs. Elizabeth Brinklev.
Who is suing her husband for divorce
q nlsnsa ct thOro, and for alimony, was
yesterday resumed before Judge Van
Brunt aud a jury The defendant,
Hugh Lawson Brinkley, is the rever-
| sionary legatee of an estate worth 81. :
800, 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, If not
true.
She first made the familiar acduaint-
snce of the defendant in 1860 at the
town of Iuka, Miss, on the Memphis
and Charleston railroad, celebrated in
ante-bellum days as q kind of watering
place, where Jefferson Davis and other
southern dignitaries had summer resi-
1ences, and where several educational
institutions we're situated. At that
time, under the name of Lizzie Charles,
plaintiff was a teacher IN a young la
dies college IN Iuka. The defendants
father had an elegant summer residence
close to the school, aud 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 al assistance
of some distant relatives. She obtain
ed employment here ss a teacher In
families, and at length IN the girls
school of Madame Bernard in Madison
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
tentive. and on the first suitable occa-
sion proposed marriage. Miss Charles
accepted the offer. While young Brink
ley was continuing his attentions as the
plaintiffs s promised husband, he ex-
planned to her that his father and fami
ly expected him to marry a southern
heiress, and admitted that he had given
the heiress and his friends good reason
to believe that he intended TO fulfill
their expectations. But he said that
nothing should separate him from the
bride of his hearts choosing, and he
pleaded with plaintiff to assist him in
concealing for a time his intention TO
defeat his fathers matrimonial project.
This appeal was strengthened by the
esseveration that he was wholly depend
ent upon his father while the old gen.
tIeman lived, and that any intimatiOn
of an intention TO defeat the parental
purpose would inevitably result in the
cutting down of the sons allowance to
a starvation figure. With much can
vassing of the subject, he proposed that
their marriage should be without relig-
ious or magisterial solemnizstion, and
should rest solely upon the ground of an
agreement meeting the requirements of
the law of New York, which makes
marriage simply civil contract. With
forms prepared on the spot the marriage
contract was consummated as he pro-
posed, and for more than five years the
young couple lived and travelled as hus-
band and wife.
In 1871 the elder Brinkley- tried TO ef-
feet separation. He offered plaintiff
money to go to Europe, where she was
to have a monthly allowance. Under
the persuasions of young Brinkley she
assented, but her positive declination
to sign paper saying she was not u
wife, broke off this engagement. Some
time afterward the defendant deserted
her In Memphis. She came to New
York, and IN due time instituted the
pending suit. The case has twice been
to the court of appeals, the defendant
interlocutory orders for the
plaintiffs maintenance. Both appeals
were dismissed.
About year ago Judge Van Brunt
spent over ten days trying the case on
its merits, and finally concluded that
the issue of the fact was too important
TO be passed upon by 8 single man, and
he ordered jury to be empenneled for |
the purpose. The cross examination Of
the plaintiff had not been concluded |
when the court adjourned yesterday. |
The plaintiff is a small, fragile woman,
very sprightIy and elegantly dressed. |
The defendant was not In attendance, |
and il 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 Ia the prosecution.