Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-10-08
THE COURTS
COURT ~ GEEREAL TERM.


cer-GeD. MuZZy for complainant, Mr.. Z. p.
stanton for respondent. In this case complain
ant sled her bin August 3, 1873, setting forth
that they have two children; that for four years
respondent did not furnish $500 all told fer the
support of the family; that he had been often
intoxicated, and had offered her personal vio-
lenCe; that he has spent for himself money
given him for his family support, has received
money due her while the family was without
food and spent il himself, aud denied receiving
ii; that since September, 1872, he has had STS2
Of petitioners money and neglected to use any
of Ii for the family-she lent him in April. 1873,
$50 she had laid aside for a trip north with chI-
dren, but though he gave his note for il he has
refused to pay it; that few days before leaving
Washington this spring she emptied silver Sc,
of hers that was in his trunks into her own,
leaving his for his own use; some days after the
servant handed her the key of the former sill
yer trunk; she directed her to give it to Nr.
Mercer, as il was his; he muttered some curse
ard walked away. and after the ser want was
gone be strnek petitioner in the face; she did
Iotbing at the time and said nothing, hoping
not to call the attention of her daughter to this
brutality; but after he had gone the little girl
spoke mp, Mamma, did You know papa struck
yOu?" that she fears her daughter's life has
been darkened By his cruelty-she seems con-
stantly atrsid Of violence, and said TO her re-
Gently, "Why, mama, ladies don't strike you"
She alleges respondent has 10 ade threats against
her; swOre he would ha We the children, &c,
and has some idea OF obtaining possession OF
property he expects TO come to her There
being no appearance on the record, decree pro
confessO was taken October II 1873, and COM
mission Issued to G.. 4. Belts New York 70
take deposit.ons. These were returned. Re-
sIondeEts counsel having shown that an ap-
Eearance wes not entered through misunier-
standing the decree pro confessO was struck
ont, leave given to file answer, and time eX-
tended 10 take dispositions.
The answer denies be has only furnished $3.50
in four years to support of family; denies he
has ever been grossly intoxicated, though he
does not deny that he drinks moderately, AMI
denies offering any personal violence to pet
tfcner; states that petitioner has considerable
real estate IL her own right; has frequently fur
nished him money which he has not spent on
self, or lost or sqUaDdCred; nor has he refuse
TO acknowledge receipt of money belonging to
petitioner; the 1882 mentioned went to use of
family and to pay previous debts; he admits
owing petitioner the $3.50; she has ample means
OF her own and has never suffered for want of
money; states that he never struck her in
anger, never offered her any violence nor in
Jured her health; has always been good and
attectiOnate husband sin spite of any little dis
agreements they may have had" that Mayo,
1914, petitioner left with her children to visit
friends in New York, with his full consent, to
return IN the fall; he went to the depot with
her, an atectionate parting took place, and she
wrote him that month two asectiOnate letters;
that he knows no rescon for her doing as she
CID, and is willing 10 receive her on her return;
thinks he has a right to the children; may have
said so; and he denies making any threats of
illegal action; he states that his business is
that of claim agent; hasn't earned more than
$40 year for the last four years.
The case was heard before Judge wylie, who,
On the 18th of June, dismissed Ihe bill at COM
Ilslnants costs. On the 25-h of July an amended
bill or petition of review was filed, In which it
was stated that the justice holding the Special
Term had announced that the prayer must be
denied and the conplainants solicitor having
stated that she had other testimony, the justice
announced that he would dismiss the bill with
out prejudice; but afterwards the decree was
drawn up in the handwriting of the defendants
solicitor and signed by the Justice, simply dts
missing the bill at the cost 81 the complainant,
on these grounds the petition asks that the
uecree my ne reviewed and revised, and made
&c conform to the heretofore expressed opinion
Of the court. On the 29th OF July, on motion
of compliments solicitor, supported by the
facts stated in the petition of review, a rehear-
Ing was ordered to take place Oh the 9th of
August. On the 4th of August the defendant
filed his answer to the bill OF review. This an
swer alleges that the decree of the 18th Of June
was drawn according - what the defendants
solicitor understood was the order of the court,
and that said solicitor was informed by the JUS
tice that he had signed the decree as written
and that no intimation was given that the bill
was TO be dismissed without prejudice.
The answer also insists that the facts
stated in the petition of review do not
justify any rehearIng, and that the decree was
just and light on the proof in the case, and
asks for the same advantage by this answer a.
might have been lad by demurrer. On the 9th
of August the decree Of tie 25th of June was
set aside, and il was ordered, adjudged, and
decreed that the petition for divorce be, and
the same Is hereby, refused, without rejudice,
and that the defendant pay the costs" From
this decree an appeal is taken by the defendant
in the court below.
The appeal was denied.
Darlington ct a.. sgt. Sweeny: order to show
cause why an attachment for contempt shall
not issue.
A SEWER CONTRACT CASE.
The case of q. f. Wiley, as &. +. Wiley x
Co, ast. Samuel Srong ct al, was argued
Hjne for plaintiff, and Lilly and Moore for de-
PENDANTS. A bill for an injunction was filed,
recitng that defendant, Strong, obtained
contract from the late Board OF Public Works
- construct sewer on 18th and Boundary ste.
northwest, and being by reason of want OF
money and credit unable to perform the work,
be sub-let some to complainant, tWilIey,) May
StG last, Wiley TO furnish all material and la
Dor, and Strong 10 pay $50 per foot in sewer
bonds as fast as they completed each 100 feet,
and If the board should elect to pay his orders
in money or other securities. the said Wiley
shall be entitled to any benefit arising there
from. The complainant charges that he COM
p.eted the work on the Sth of August, and final
measurement was made by the proper officer on
August goth; that he furnished all the material
in ,0S9 feet OF the sewer, and the defendant be-
came indebted to him for S32, $40, Of which sum
S., eco has been paid, leaving still due S27 $40;
that he was required and gave bond for the
faithful performance of his contract in the per-
SOD OF Robert Campbell, and IL was then agreed
that on the completion of each hundred feet the
defendant Strong was to give Campbell an
order for $4,000, and from May to August
he gave Campbell orders for $50, 446
that said Strong has given orders on said board
to the amount OF sc, 5i5, on which FIVE thousand
dollars has been paid in certificates, leaving a
balance due the complainant OF IS ,6S9, for
which the said Strong refuses to give even an
order for the payment, alleging for such refusal
that the complainant is indebted to his work
men about IS 500; that he filed part of said
orders with the late Board of p ublic Works and
others with the present District government:
that the said Board of Public Works at all times
recognized said orders as valid assignment, but
since the completion of SAID sewer the defendant
Strong, both by himself and by attorney,
has made, and is still making, efforts to induce
said board OF audit to settle with this defendant
that all of said orders, except one OF $535, have
been returned TO complainant because of the
interference OF defendant; he charges the de-
tendant with being insOlvent he represents
that he is greatly in debt, ana that he will be
utterly unable to pay unless he can obtain
specific performance of his agreement with the
defendant; he charges that the defendant will
in day or two, II not restrained By this court,
obtain from the board of audit certificates for
all they are indebted TO him, and when in pos
session of said certificates defraud this COM
plaiDant of bis just due, and that his attorney
has declared such to be his intention; that his
object in doing so is to cheat many laborers and
men who have furnished material for said sewer:
he further says that he never had a copartner
in the construction of said sewer, and b charges
that this tact was well Anown TO this defendant;
he therefore prayed that defendant be restrained
from interfering with the board of audit in set
rlr and