The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-03-30
BROWNS MATRIMONIAL CONTRACTS.
BUYING OFF WIVES RIGHT OF DOVER AND
GETTING soLD-rHE TWO MRS. BROWNS
THE WEES TRIudPH

UUYIS0 OFF WIFE RIGHT oF Do"En AMI
GETTING soLD-rHE TWO MRS. BROWNS
THE wIFE's TRIUMPH.
Several years ago few men more prominently
known in this city than John l.. Brown. He was
brought into such prominence more particularly
through his connection with the street cleaning con-
tracts lie also figured largely In other city Contracts
all OF which proved moro or less remuncratve, tho
result being that at the time OF his death
(which occurred on March g. 1879, no was possessed
OF large estate. Prior to his death his partner
was Mr. Charles Guidet and good share OF the prop
erty he Left comprised partnership property. While
the public knew Mr. Brown contractor very little
beyopd a limited circle known regarding his do
nestle life In various litigatons that have since
ARISEN and especially growing out OF the contest
over his WILL tho facts connected with his married lie
havo been pretty well made public
MRS BROWN NUMBER ONE
Mr. Brown was married in November, 1928. As far
rs is known he and his wife lived together quite har
,nonously for about fifteen years, when Mr. Brown
evinced poiygamc disposition, aud, forgetting his
marriage VOWS, assumed marital relations with an
other woman This alienation OF his affections which
was said to have been mainly caused by the fact OF
having no children, did meet with the hearty con-
currence Of WIFE, but they talked the matter over,
and finally marital separation was drawn up between
PROVIDING FOR NUMBER oSs
These articles OF separation were drawn up In 1868.
Mr. Brown was then a successful business man. but
probably with but iito or anticipation OF the road
10 fortune that lay before him. He was not ngsardly
man by any means ana so anasr ,h0 v cr
liberal settlement upon his vile. me agree
mcnt that in consideration OF Sloo00 she
would leave him free TO do and net as he pleased IN
the future such provision doubtless having reference
10 his new imonia departure, and that she would
or az snoud o. possess Tho articles
were skiIiuly drawn and ON their iaco looked as
though no possible defect could De found a.lacs,hs
shown concusvely in his VIII drawn up shortly
MRS. BROWN NUMBER TWO.
Mr. Brown lived with Mrs. Brown No. 2, or, as he
designated her hts will, "My dear wife, Harriet f.
for twenty Ia ns w ss Maas he s
death In his son, John L. Brown u: IA
the testimony gwen In tho courts growing
represented MS q most cstimablo lady, and that
Mr. Browns life with her happy one is SHOWN n
the ample provision made for her future maintenance
although in the contest II was urged tha! In his de-
cning years no had lost good deal OF the vgor of
mind and scli-asserting Will which formed Tho striking
characteristics OF his earlier career.
CLAIM THE ORIGINAL MRS. BROWN
During Mr.. Browns lifetime his wife, as far as IL
known, never made any pecuniary demands upon him,
but continued carry strictly her part OF thcr
written agreement entered into upon their separation
II Is stated that never would taken any step
In the matter except for the suggestions Others who
insisted that such would not hold good IN
law suit was accordingly brought for her right
OF dover in Mr.. Browns estate. Coupled with this
suit also brought by Mr. Gu,det tor partition
OF hts property, which OF course would have to prccede
the adjustment OF her dover right The suit was
brought To trial some time since before Judge Van
Vorst al Supreme Court, Special Term. Judge Van
Worst yesterday gave his decision the same
In quite lengthy opinion, the substance OF which Is
gwen below
at quito clear that the execution OF this agree.
ment by the defendant Mary AnE Brown, aid not in
law release or discharge her dover in her husbands
land That could only be accomplished by uniting
W u
AS lar rs the instrument purported TO release her
claim OF dover to her husbands estate the wifes
agreement a nuy, and as 1t docs not
appear that since her husbands death the
widow has executed any release Of her rights and
interest in the land in question, she is IN law entitled
to her dover. But Is urged, In opposition TO the
claim the widow, that she accepted and Is IN the
and that she Is equtaby cstoppcd by such provision
aud the agreement question from asserting any claim
10 dover In her husbands lands. Tho object OF the
husband In making the pecuniarv provision by tho
agreement Of 1855 In favor Of his wife was Tor her
comfortable support, that she might DO maintained
with the comforts aud convcnicrccs which she lad
heretofore had. This assuredly his duty toward
her. and there Is nothing disclosed In the case from
which IL can IN any he inferred that he could
not have been compelled to do this had he refused,
although they lived apart. II IS both moral and legal
duty imposed upon husband TO support his wife aud
that with reasonable comfort and convenionCcs. This
ali the agreement question proposed 10 accom-
psh The defendants counsel cites no case IN sup
port of hts that the widow ~ cquably cstoppcd
from asserting her claims to dover by the agreement
and provision In question. On tho other hand there
ore cases which dscouncnnnce any such conclusions
ALIExATING DOVER
Dover is highly regarded in no law. II is moral as
well as legal right. This humane provision oil tho
common law was intended Tor the aud competent
Of the widow aud the better nurture and cd
ucatou Of hts children "a Kcnts Com, page 1851.
The husband defeat 1t by any the nature
OF alteration charges without the assent Of the
vile given and proved according 10 Law"
After citing various cases showing that right
Of dover cannot defeated by arrangements OF the
nature contemplated by the agreement between the
parties, he states that courts OF equity have justly
hesated IRON in any giving their sanction 10
separations husband aud wife by voluntary arrange
ment, such separations being regarded contrary TO
the policy of the law and against morals.
He finds case, he says further, IN which
II has been neld that vile
her husband her dover rights directly indirectly
Aside from strictly legal aspects OF the case he
states that the widow being ever seventy years OF
and the provision In question having been made over
twenty years ago. such provision must by this time be
pretty well exhausted. lie directs, In conclusion, n
PARTITION SALE and that Mrs. Brown be given dover
right In the same.
MITTIONNAIRE'S ROMANCE