The New York herald., 1876-12-13
EsTHETICs OF DIVORCE SUITS.

Clouds OF darker mystery ovcrshadow divorce pro-
ceedngs In the courts than any other branch Of tga-
tion The facility with which divorces sonnet
procured only deepens the mystery. case throwing
some light the subject is tho suit for divorce
brought by Mercer +. Duryea against Emma G. Dur
yea The SUIT was commenced IN July last, divorce
beng sought the ground of the alleged adultery Of
the wiia Aor the usual preliminary granting OF ALI
mony and counsel fee the case was referred 10 Mr..
Frederick Smythe to take the testimony in the case
In the meantime action for divorce was ipsti
tutcd by tho wife against her husband DIVORCE In
which similar charge OF marital unfaithfulness was
preferred against him, and such charge forming the
basis Of the counter SUIT Most positive testimony
gwen before tho referee substan the
ton against Mrs. Duryca, but the IaIters counsel Mr.
John Mott, with the keen intuition that this
Gated testimony enable the husband 10 got rid OF b
wife, examined them with such rigid severity,
which, combined with his own subsequent investiga-
lions TO establish the lasity oil their testimony laid
bare tho plot. Instead or getting the divor sought
Tor py Mr.. Duryca the tables against him.
aud decree divorce was granted In favor Of Mrs Dur
yea, such decree being granted by Judge Blaay upon
tho report tho referee. This Is regarded as a sam
ole oi many divorce proceedings which unfortu-
nately frequently terminate In iavor oil those bringing
thc suits and trumping up testimony TO accomplish
their purpose
Another divorce suit, but presenting rather different
features, IS that brought by RcDecca NJ. O. Marsh
iiom her husband Arthur Il. Marsh, The ground Or
adultery. she states III her complaint that they were
married in England in October 1857, and livcd to-
gether urt Tho Lrst OF last January; that he then
commenced living IN open adultery with Sallic
Henderson: ut that time he abandone cd her bur ur
nished her with SIS week for her support and until
thc 18th OF November last, VIII icn time he has
hot provided her with any means o liviug that she
entirely destitute, and that ms income ~,
salesman Tor Tnomas Nelson & Son The usual
application WIS made Tor alimony and counsel fec In
response TO tns application the defendant put
affidavit stating some rather singular facts
Hc says. among other things that his
the 18th Of January OF this year he had over
drawn his salary s2lg3 ,0: that lquidatc this
ovcrdrait he has arranged with his employers
AID only 81 400 year until the amount OF his In
dcLtcdpcss is cancelled, aad that he personal
property except his wardrobe ana money ON hand
tnd no means OF obtaining any beyond his salary lie
says urthcr, that he wiling 10 pay the plaintiff Sl2
awcck and $5O counsel tee, tho latter sum, as he
thinks being ample 10 compensate counsel Tor their
He accounts his oyerdrat. as stated above
TO expenses incurred by planun IN two trips TO
Europo IN the last two years rhe most striking fen
IN tho affidavit IS tie following clause, winch is
self eItcxpmnatory THAT this aclion, and the pub-
city given TO IL BY the plaintiff has made dcponcnt
position with sad rm extremely precarious and de-
poncnt IS liable at any moment lose The same said
firm being engaged almost exclusively in the puDcs-
ton OF sunday school and other religious works -
judge Brady, before whom the was submitted in
supreme Court Chambers gave order yesterday
assy and .o ~ hSr counsel Ness rue $40
Yc IN appeared or PLAIN inand Messrs. Mackay aud
Kelly ior the defendant
THE TALL TOWER" LITIGATION.
Already there has been tried, decided aud published
Association and the Tribune Assocla,on based upon
Slain By The former that the foundation OF tho party
wall OF the Iatter's building encroachcu inches on
the Suns lot Yesterday, IN the Superior Court be-
fore Judge Scdgwick and jury. there came on for
trial another suit between the same parties which is
sort OF appendix 10 the FIRST 1t appears that when
undor the statute tho Tribune people were taking
TO support the Suns wall against the effect
OF the 7riJue's excavation became necessary run
the 7ribane's noodles through the Suns wall to
a distance OF about twelve feet Inside The
Sun building, and within about Ave SIX feet
OF the wall to be supported. the printing presses
aud other machinery OF The Sua The removal of
which became necessary in order 10 protect IRON
injury by the Trt6unes needles. The machinery
removed 10 u secure position by thc Sun people,
they claim, IN pursuance OF understanding with Mr.
Ford, the business msnagcr Of the Tribune that the
bills for the expense OF the removal could be
him and he would pay them. When the work was
completed bills we're sent 10 him 10 tho extent OF
1851 6S, payment OF which refused by Mr.. Ford
ground that the Tribune responsible for
expense oil supporting the wall, but not Tor the cx-
pcnsc the removal Of tho SUMS macn merry ,ueccs-
sary TO facilitate the work OF supporting For the re-
OF tho amount OF thcso bills The present suit
was truught The testimony OF Mr. England OF tho
san, TO the elect that, In a conversation with
Mr. Ford OF tho Tribune before Ihc work was
done, the latter hod promised TO pay the
expense. In oppohtion TO this Mr. Ford testified
that he made any such promise. Mr.. o. Briep
the contractor for tho Tbunes excavation dcncd 10
The best Of his knowledge, that he threatened 10
run the T7bne's needles through the Sums
m the Inter not taken out OF the way. On the
mart Of plaintiff IL claimed that there only
promise The part OF the Tribune pay the bills
uphoIding tho wall which was contemplated BY Stat