The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-16

order. Nothing. his Honor went on TO say. Is
more dsgfaceul than tie use made OF the laws
10 AVOID the marriage contract. Here was
woman whoA the papers snow was married o
man In GERMANY became acquainted with an
other man. anu she came 70 ms cOuntry evidently
Win the intent 70 cvadc tne laws there and pro-
cure divorce, which sne could not procure IN ner
own country. The whole case SHOWS tnat her
efforts were to Get divorce rom Mr. Rhadde aud
marry the other party, ana mat ehe had no right
to Get IL, and sne cannot hold those parties aDle
for any loss that ensueG. 1t was her own lault IN
trying 10 get divorce which she mad no right 10
get.
used IN divorce cases should be ended II possible.
There Is no greater bywofd than Indiana divorces,
and he hoped the courts oil this State would TO
IL thai the byw0rd snail not nave any application
here. lie felt ~ his duty under the circumstances
70 order dismissal OF the complaint, ana 50 or
dered.
Mr.. Aub said that he mad not intended TO say
ANYTHING IN the case, ana SHOULD not had his
Honor confined himself to the as The iacts had
come bel lore him, bnt as he had auued 10 matters
OUTSIDE OIL the record, to matters IN Europe which
were positively Wtihln his own personal knowl-
edge, he deemed II his duty 10 reply 70 the asper-
sions cast upon an absent ady, and stare IN COR
rectlon ol iliS Honor hat the divorce obtained ia
Europe by the husoand was NOT on charge o.
adultery on her part, ana that the remark as 10
her marrying soon again applied with equal
force 10 her flrst husband, VINO was now I, G nus
band oil MISS Grossi with whom he was charged
with committing adultery, and which charge
formed the basis OF Nine. Lucca's divorce suit
PLAIN TALK BY AN IRATE LAWYER.
In suit brought by Jacob Bennett against
Cohn Alexander Judgment was obtained against
Bennett, Diminishing the complaint. with S2l6
costs. motion 10 open the Judgment was heard
yesterday before Judge Barrett supreme Court
Chambers. 1t appears tnat 10 an aildayit made
by Bennett for the purpose OF the notion a
charge OF collision was made against both plain
TINS and defendants attorneys. Mr.. Matthew z.
Breen, IN opposing the motion. stated that the
suit was some time since settled by The parties III
the synagogue without his knowledge; whlie the
lawyers In the case, ignorant OF TINS, pummelled
away at each other III Court on several
motions, on casa which really mad
no existence in fact. lie then referred
10 the conduct OF the plaintiffs attorney IN rea-
lion to spreading SANDER on he records Of tile
Court against brother attorney III unsparlng
terms, and SAID such conuuct on the part OF an
attorney OF the Court to gam point was gross
violation OF professional decency, and that the
lawyer who comes into Court clothed with the
dignity OF calling, and instead OF relying upon
the merits oil his application, attempts 10 heap
vilidcauon and dishonor upon MS oroLner lawyer,
is botn moral aud intellectual coward. ana
wholly unit TO exercise the functions OF MS profess
sion. The PLAINTIFFS attorney attempted TO eX-
plain but the Judge refused TO near HIN untli to-
day. when another motion comes up before MIN
arcumenI.