The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-02-18
Another Page from the Chapter Of
Marital Experience.
TRINITY CHURCH IN THE COURTS.
Parliamentary Vagaries of a Well Known New
York Lawyer.
JUDGE FLANAGAN'S DEFENCE.


facilitating them One more. tho Circuit cal
endar Of the Supreme Court OF this city and liable 10
be reached any day for trial. to be added TO the
Der in which reciprocity between Now York and Con-
necticut has been duly observed. In many divorce
suits heretofore tried New York has furnished the par
ties and Connecticut the laws In this the attcr State
may properly be said furnish the parties while the
former furnishes the laws About tho year 1855
young and blooming dark-eycd widow, belonging to an
excellent family Duchess county, this State and not
far out OF her teens, guest at New
York hotel There she met by chance
Arthur Terry, then almost three times
her age but still sturdy, nord aud confident He was
q widower and unencumbercd by children; she was
was necessary to satisfy both that they anties
and marriage was the result But. Notwithstanding
there was no formal and final outbreak or separation
between the parties until little year ago. tho
course Of their true love did not always smoothly
up to that time. In 1865 he commenced suit for
divorce against her in tho State OF Connecticut but
when II was reached Tor trial he failed to prosecute
with tho necessary testimony. and his ompaint was
dismissed. This temporary breach was brdged over
ana ana thoy lived Tor some time her9aiter IN STAN
he was photographer, and went ~ Mexico for the
purpose OF establishing the same business there and
thither she accompanied him. In small town near
the coast they halted Tor some time, at the end Of
which he proposed to go into tho interior He told
mission with the comforting that II she did
She would not live six months. Whether hor death
or BANDITS stileto, fatigue, foyer his kind
ment, he never condescendcd TO enlighten her. He
gave her the alternative however, to return 70 Now
support. This she accepted, and for about one year
she received the allowance, when the arrange
mcnt was Unexpectedly broken up by the
service OF papers her divorce suit.
This service Of papers was the 6tsl notice she
hid OF her husbands return from Mexico rho suit
haiing from the far oil State OF Georgia She imme-
da.ey resented this charge by putting an de-
nyng II. and ut the same time commenced cross
SUIT Tor limited divorce from MIN the ground OF
cruel and inhuman treatment on his part This
ana inhosptably locking her out OF his room. Such,
substance are the charges and counter charges be-
both suits.
The next move a motion on her part for an
order Of court directing him to pay fec in both
suits TO her counsel and make her
sen. referee for the purpose Of
takVio testimony TO the husbands means and re-
port what would be proper sum for him to pay. The
referee reported In favor OF $50 week anony and
$3.50 In each suit counsel fee. The Court confirmed
the report ana order entered in conformity
herewith BY this time Terry had ceased 10 be
siole for tho service oil papers on HIM and copy OF
the order was served on his counsel under provisions
Of the revised code to that effect But this service
brought no money and on proper application to the
Detectives employed on the part Of the wife put
on the track OF the missing husband Alter time
an inhabitant Of a cloud-St. Cloud, but had taken
light Tor other and unknown regions just before his
manned unattached 10 his wife and unattached to
tho court If he puts Ia appearance when tho tral
u reached this question OF amony, counsel toe and
costs VIII, no doubt secure HIM cordial reception
alike IRON his wife, her counsel and tho Sheriff Be-
fore tho referee witnesses Mexico produced
who gave testimony TO the effect that the wife mad
been seen while IN that country riding and walking
out with gentlemen other than her husband. This,
the husband asserted was without his perm al.
hiS parm iseia IN
one occasion. IL seemed TO Ue anticipated that the
husbands ,d'. witness !Rogersh or some evidence
cree. but neither appeared, and IL is now
asserted that not only has Rogers nothing worth
lying TO- but that even II he had, he has been In
doubtful mental condition 10 do As reJoInder to
the we's charges Of violence 1t would the hus-
band also made charges OF violence against her. CON-
mitted in Mexico. II was violence committed on his
trunk, however, and his only for charging his
wife with the act was that, though it broken open
nothing was stolen thereirom. The wiie, is rep
resented by her friends to be as innocent Of tho
chargas ngainst her she stylish person aud in
tcligcnt In mind said await impalently the ap.
preaching contest in the court, while her husband
doubtless is photosraphing other aud different
somewhere in spa:e.
A TRINITY CHURCH EVICTION SUIT.
Some important questions affecting tho rights OF
lessons IN bankruptcy proceedings argued yestcr
day before Judge Batchford, in tho Bankruptcy Court
IL appears that in 1872 Trinity church leased the
Greer.rurner Sugar Refining Company large parcel
Of land on Greenwich, King and Charlton Streets In
this city. Tho rent reserved 5000 per year and
taxes The lessee purchased OF previous tenant the
structures and fixtures on tho demsed promises and
paid 100000 for them. Trinity church never owned
these improvements, and they had been put on the
property solely Tor the purpose Of carrying on tho
business Of sugar refining Tho Greer Turner CON-
pany Jailed early in 1876 and assignee in bank
ruptcy, NJ. Cox. was appointed in November
1870 NO rent has been paid to Trinity church since
May l, 1876. and tho taxes have renamed
unpaid since 1873 In January 1877, Trinity church
bcgsn summary proceedings ejcctment against the
Grcer-rurncr Company and ITS assignee. Judge
cnjoned those proceedings and yesterday
n motion OF Trinity church to vacate that Injunction
and ~ permit tho uispossesslon proceed came on to
be heard. II was contondcd by Mr.. Nasn. Tor Trnny
church, that by the terms OF tho the Grecrrur-
Der Company had forfeited its interest in the build
ings, which were held as security for the rent tha.
accrued to 1t under the lease, and that inasmuch
thcrc were large arrcarages OF rent the Bankruptcy
10 the possession of tho land, and
the right OF holding tho structures 10
realize tho rent. or he was willing to have tho
assignee remain In possession upon payment OF all
tho back r,nt Mr. Patterson, Tor tho assignee, con.
tended that under tho Revised Statutes OF the United
States there could longer be any summary eject.
mcnt by landlord as against tenant or assignee Of
tenant In bankruptcy; that tho property was IN the
hands OF the Bankruptcy Court and all rights and
remedies must be adjusted and administered there,
and that II the Court mad discretion rcogite
Inc cause to State tribunal would not exercise It
ruei In the light OF we'll settled principles OF law, It
was evident contest impended between the
assignee and Trinity church ms 10 tho
ownership OF the buildings. Tue assignee claimed his
right TO those buildings NJ common law and not under
the lease. which merely gave permission 10 remove
whereas the right TO removal was quito separabe from
any permission or concession OF the lessee, the build
inss having been erected merely Tor the purposes OF
lrnoc ana having been paid for by tho Greer.Turnrr
Company. AS to the rent III claimed that
couiu only DO proven as general debt Judge Blutct-
lord remarked that The questions very
lprl n
took the papcrs and reserved his decision Mcssrs o.
a. Ogden aud stephen =. Nash appeared for Trinity
church ana Mossrs Charles NJ. Da Costa and Edward
Patterson for tho assignee bankruptcy.
LAWYER HASKETT'S STRANGE WILL.
The old adage that when man Is his own lawyer he
has fool Tor client is cxcmpliacd as well With tho
profess on as outside of IT, Evident proof Of this is
gwen in the making of wills by lawyers specially so
IN the case Of the Will OF the late Lord St. Lconards