The New York herald., 1874-05-07
MATRIMoNY AND ALIM0NY.

Three Times Married and Twice DE-
vorced-One or the Divorced Husbands
OBJECTS to the Last Happy Man Living
On His Money-Curious Litigation.
The present wife OF General G. L. Anderson, Col
iector OF United states Revenue In the Third DIS
trict OF South Carolina, has had more than her
share OF the moiety or human troubles allotted to
women. In the nrst place she has been three
times married; but this Ii not all She has had
two divorce suits to manage, and now has a third
suit on hand. She sull lives, but In her papers
complains of falling health 1t Is unnecessary to
more than briefly recapirulate that por-
tion OF ner history relating to her legal
tripulatons, as in their previous stages
in the courts they have already been
given in full in the HERALD. She married FIRST Mr..
Joseph Girard. and from him obtained her first
divorce and alimony OF $672 SO year. She next
married Mr.. Thomas c. sheppard, and from him
obtained her second divorce; but as Mr.. Sheppard
was much better or In this worlds goods than her
former husband, the Court compelled him to pay
as alimony SO, 900 year. This second decree OF
divorce was obtained In septe mber, 1871. Mr..
Sheppard paid the aiimony promptly until after
her marrying General Anderson, when, consider
ing that she very well provided for pecuniary,
he invoked the Court to release him from further
Having gone through snur an Inc pre- p.e case
finally reached yesterday the Supreme Court, Gen.
eral Ierm, Judges Davis Brady and Danies being
decision refusing any modification VI the decree as
to allmony.
was first submitted to the Court whether there Is
anything In the law relative to divorces or In the
reason oil the law, TO compel one man TO support
another mans wife, 1t was also urged that the
provisions OF final decree In respect to alimony
are always within the power Of the Court to
cnange, as the circumstances or the parties may
change; that q pecunlary or other marital altera-
tlon Of circumstances may render proper q change
In alimony; that the provision Of the decree that
aiInOnV
life is subject to the condition, unless otherwise
ordered by the Court that the principle Of the law
requiring husband to provide for the support
Tor his fault, Is based upon the mora!-legal duty
OF the husband to support his wife; that when the
moral and legal duty OF q husband 20 support his
divorced vile ceases the aiimony should cease;
that when she remarries he ceases to owe her any
duty as husband, including the duty OF support;
that the plaintln has her option either to retain
her aimOny or to obtain q new husband; that she
cannot have both; that she cannot ENJOY the socl-
expense or the pocket OF the second; that whether
to lay this $4,000 year on the altar OF ner third
lover Is for her to decide. IL was also stated that
they were informed that she was not SO deeply In
love as not TO take advice on the effect OF new
husband on the alim0ny question. During the
argument numerous authorities were cited and
commented upon, including the Forest divorce
suit.
In opposition the leading points raised were that
no pre- tence is made that the pecunlary condition
OF the defendant has become impaired since the
decree was made and that in accordance with the
refusal Of the Court to allow commission TO take
testimony to prove immoral conduct In the plain
tin after The decree divorce in her favor, Tor the
purpose OF reducing the alimony-that the mar
the decree, did not work forfeiture OF the all
mony.
At the conclusion OF the argument the Court
TOOK the papers, reserving It's decision.