The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-21
Service of an Amended Complaint
in the Walker Divorce Suit.
Interesting Legal and Financial Contest
Between Husband and Wife.
PECULIAR PROCEEDINGS.
important Question as TO the Recon-
structon of a Lease.

Tho Walker divorce snt promises 10 DO an heirloom
In the courts In the suit brought by Mrs. Walker
against Dr. Walker for absolute divorce on the ground
OF his alleged adultery tho amended complaint has
been served by Mr.. John d. Perry, counsel for Mrs
Walker, on Mr.. G. w. McAdam, the opposing counsel
This complaint forth that the parties married
San Franciso in August 1867. That May !, 1865
DR. Walker, by their joint cxcrtions having IN tho
meantime acquired certain rights aud properly articles
or agreement signed between him, principal,
and certain other parties agents. under which his
entire fortune, amounting 81, goo 0oo excluding
about $3.50 900 since acquired by him this State, has
been managed and is to he managed until Mny
], 1855 That IN August, 1869, her husband changed
his domice from San Francisco 10 New York That the
contentious which here subsequent 20 1870 on
account OF his relations here BY his two former wYrs
aiicnaed his affections from her with view to obtain
his favor favorable provisions in his VIII to tho in
jury OF her children That the reputation they sought
10 givc her not her true character and that her
puison from his house and his suit for divorce on the
ground OF her alleged adultery was inslnccre and
without intent prosecute II 10 lnal judg-
ment, but with intent only 10 bring her to
his terms. The complaint further sets
forth thar the constitution OF the State OF California
provides that claws shalt be passed more clearly
inning the rights OF the wife in relation as well TO her
scnarae propery ms TO TINT held in common with her
HUSBAND That the Legislature OF California In pur
thereof, and before the marriage between the
plaintiff and defendant, abolished dover in the wife and
the husband denied the husband or the vito
the right make will without the consent IN writing
OF the other respect to common property, and fur
ther enacted that ai property acquired alter the mar
rage by husband vile, except such may be
acquired by gift bcqncst, devise or descent shall be
common property that ''thc husband shall have tho
entire management and control OF the common prop
erty with the like absolute power OF disposition rs OF
ms own separate estate when py Judicial cons'Iuc
her rights; that Tin case OF the dissolution OF the mar
riage by decree OF any court Of competent Jurisdictions
tho common property shall be equally divided between
the parties and the Court granting the decree shall make
such order for the division Of the common property or
The aud equal distribution Of the proceeds thereof
us the nature OF the may require, provided that
when such decree of divorce rendered the ground
OF adultery or extreme cruelty party found guilty
thereof shall only be entitled TO such portion OF the
property the Court granting the decree may
in its discretion from the facts OF the case deem Just
allow and such allowance shall he subject to rcvi
appeal in all respects including the exercise OF
discretion by the Court below that The ultimate OBJ
jcct the whole of defendants OF treatment OF
and conduct toward the plaintiff was 10 obtain divorce
from her the ground OF her alleged adultery, In an
in which should be the defendant and thereby
of the rights OF the plaintiff and her two children in
his property, but especially In said property which,
under the laws of California; was common property. or
Mat he might force her TO submission 10 his terms and
ihus obtain his freedom to give away during his life
lime and dispose by will AZ his death, ofhc whole Of
laid common property among his children and
relations aforesaid by his Two former wives he
It, to the injury of TINS plaintiff and her sad two chill
principal said business, aud had emblaz-
oncd upon his checks &c. the word proprietor,
all which is by virtue said contract executed him
upon each change of domcile, the sole representa-
tive by statute OF the common property OF himself and
wife, which contract perhaps governed by the law of
the State In which II made, and winch common
property. perhaps without the aid OF contract,
might not at common law In any State of tho
United States where the common law upon the sub
jcct prevails become the separate property of the nus
band by only oil the tact that the husband
changed his domice to any ono OF sucf States The
complaint then goes TO say that Mrs Walker has
Tcsour her and Is entirely dependent upon
the defendant for support; that che makes claim
20 interest in his business, bit she claims the
right TO refuse her consent in writing To any paper
writing that may inure her her children, and tho
present TO this Jurisdiction the true, legal aud
property relations existing between her husband and
herself the time OF their marriage aud ut the
the defendants change OF domlcilc by entering
this Jurisdiction aLd thus TO ascertain be informed
what notifications have been made in their respective
rights and powers by the circumstances which nave
transpired.
One OF the children named Is the child OF Mrs Wal
Ecr by her nrst husband Mrs Walker has also brought
suit IN the Supreme Court Tor a limited divorce the
ground OF cruelty the event of Dr.. Walkers
ing miscarriage OF the adultery suits, In which she
claims the rights and powers and represents her
two children and their rights II her counsel Is correct
IN his views and he claims to have authority ut
law take the course he Is pursuing, addition
the and the California statutes, these suits
involve no less question than the descent, DIR.
Walkers DEATH OF $4,000 to Mrs. Walkers two
ri