The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-06-13
THE COURTS.
Renewing the Legal Conflict in the
Morrell Divorce Case.
CONNECTICUT DIVORCE LAW
A Long List of Counterfeit Cases
Ready for Trial.
iMPEACHlNG JUDGMENT RECORDS.

Prominent both in wealth and social standing were
and are John H. Morrell and his former wife Jeanne
They were married IN February. 1865. and have mad
children, one OF whom IL dead, and The other now
about seven years Of age. In Dccember 1878, their
early love seems to have grown cold and rccoil &C.
cured Articles OF separation were drawn up by
which she was to have allowance OF So, 200
year. be the custody OF their only living child
whom she should have the privilege oil visiting once
month. This agreement was adhered 10 untl the fall
OF 1876, when new one was substituted In which she
was to receive $1,000 u year Instead o. $1,000
This second arrangement had not been long oper-
ation when she concluded that she wcnd like
some decree OF court on tho matter oil
their conflicts Of temperament and aicnaton-some-
thing that would hold them apart personally and de-
fine their future each other To this lie made
no opposition, but the contrary, regarding II some
what as legal process TO confirm their previous
separation aud agreement, assented TO her commence
Ing q suit against him In the state OF Connecticut
There she decree In her favor on the alleged
ground of cruel treatment and abandonment, with
Allowance, as previously, oil $4,000 year and the
right visit their child at all reasonable times. Not
wthslanding this decree the husband considered the
previous agreement in relation 10 tho visits Of tho
mother her child but once month su binding ana
10 II he insisted she should achere. purins the
pusl winter he took the little girl 10 Florida Tor her
leQlth. that time the arrangements Was not
strictly adhered to. Now, this right of visitation by
the wife threatens TO DO the means OF opening agan
all the old domestic wounds OF herself and oser aus
band. She has coiue insist that the mutual agree
has been superseded By tho Connecticut decree,
claims right under that decree 10 visit their
ltie girl at all reasonable times Upon al affidavit
recently by her, In which she rccstcs suDsan-
TALLY the foregoing facts and in addition thereto al
eges that her husband Is only not carrying oot
their mutual agreement TO her right to visit
their child, but that during the past winter
~. IN purSu La
10 lnd mat they HAD removed elsewhere and she was
compelled follow them up Intellectually from place 70
place until they reached this city again Here the
little girl piaced in the Gardner institute, with
liberty the mother to VISIT only the father should
have notice and permit an Interview and on several
occasions she gave notice aud appeared at the nst
lule but informed by the Principal that by orders
the childs father she could NOT 10 permitted TO see
her. Upon this affidavit her counsel Messrs. Peton
Barrett in Supreme Court, Chambers, a few
days since and obtained temporary inlnnc
ton directed 70 Mr.. Morrcll foroiddng him, his
attorneys agents from removing bis little girl IRON
her present residence or concealng her. Accompany
ing tus order directing him 10 show cause be-
fore the Court yesterday why this Injunction should
not be made permanent, and difectin. further that
IN the further of the Court Tho mother shall
have the privilege OF visiting her child once week
IN obedience 10 mat order Mr. Norrei put In prompt
appearance by his counsel Messrs Charles Tracy and
James w. Gerard, before Judge Westbrook, in Su-
prcine Court Chambers, yesterday On his behalf his
counsel prepared with counter aiiidavi,s made
by himself and others III his own affidavit Mr.
Morrcl substantially agrees with Mrs. Morreli
stating the various steps leaulng 10 tncr
separation and its conditions, except that he
alleges that when the first agreement entered INTO
Tor divorce between The parties was about to be
commenced and tho mutual agreement was WITH
view 10 avoid scandal lie alleges IL been tho
Understanding that the Connecticut divorce was TO be-
merely nrmaory OF the last agreement Of separa-
But they most widely apart IN their ALL
davs the question OF the frequency OF the mothers
VISITS 10 their little GIRL The mother asserting That the
neral welfare and happiness of the child depend on
the visits being as numerous us possible and ho main
ing that the fewer they the better VIII be the
little all these respects. When the cause was
called argument OF the counsel Tor the WHO asked
adjournment until to-day, owing 10 the act that ais
partner, who had prepared himself to make tho
argument. was Engaged IN the trial OF a cause IN
another court the Marine Court This earnestly
opposed by Mr. Gerard the part OF the husband He
SAID they had issued against them ex parte pecu-
arly oppressive Injunction IL restrained tho father
in whose lawful Custody the child was from removing
BIER from her present residence. Her present rest
1ence Gardner Institute, wnefe she Is attending
school This institute closes lis school year on the
18th inst, and II the injunction continues until then
Will be lett alone strange house with no ono
10 tor her, ut least only servants They were
called into court then, they we're there then, and
should not be delayed the engagement OF opposing
counsel IN mere twopenny court The Court
about to order the argument to go on, but tho
further urging OF counsel Tor the wife consented TO
let stand until to-day, remarking that IL could
DO disposed OF thcn and before the ata 10th day had
been reached McHsrs. Tracy and Gerard then re-
aucslcd that the TO be adjourned, II might
adour early hour to-day. 10 this tho Court
lssened naming the hour OF halfpast ten this morning
which the argument would be heard.
------