The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-06-16
An Interesting Decision in the
Kinney Divorce Suit.
MOTION FOR ALIMONY DENIED.
Official Revellings in Uptown
Fashionable Flats.
CHOOSING BETWEEN TWO EVILS.
The Financial Difficulties OF
Rapid Transit.

The almost threadbare story OF tho Kinney divorce
suit again rected to Judge J. +. Daily recently
the Special term Of tho Court OF Common Pleas on
motion by Mrs Kinney for alimony and counsel fee
Mrs. Kinney, IN her affidavit that motion, stated
that she married to Mr.. Kinney February Fl
1871, and that prior to that she had 10
willard Ide May ~, 1857; that her first husband be-
came dsspated, and May juno. 1859, ne failed to
come home usual, and from that time 10 the pres
ent she has heard from him that At tho
timo OF her second marriage she mentioned
the circumstance oil her first marriage; that
Mr. Kinney said he perfectly willing marry
hor, notwithstanding that she SAID sho would
consult q lawyer first and, having done So
informed that tree marry
but that II would be safer to get divorce that the
plaintiff said he thought this foolish, and satisfy
him she consented 10 marry him, having hrst con-
vcrsed with her lawyer, who informed her that the
referee had found that she entitled ivorce;
that she gave tho papers when she obtained them
Sometime aftor their marragc-to her husband, who
N retains them that after several quarres he finally
loft her in August, 1876, and claims that she is
not bis legal WIFE, She further that he paid her
$50 week for her support until tho latter part OF
January, 1877, when the payments ceased that no
fuses 70 give up her private effects, he her
money and that she has nothing but her pers ef-
lects. Other supporting anidavits madc. Mr..
Kinney, in his opposing affidavit, states that nc sep
he supposed absolute divorce
merely separation, and that even this
He also charges her with divers acts Of adultery says
she was abusive and frequently became intoxicated;
her first husband was living, and that she knew II
when she married him and, in tact, had admitted IL 10
mum Unes aeEaSns are made denying the state
are numerous afdavts as TO Mr.. kinzey's reputation
Tor veracity. The complaint was also demtrred to
the ground that did not state that tho marriage Of
tho defendant with Willard lde in force at the time
Of the marriage between the parties Judge Daily sus
ains the demurrer but denies the motion Tor alm0ny
He says-'Although defendant positively swears that
The had knowledge Of tho whereabouts oil her first
husband ana had heard OF from him for some
nine years prior 10 her marriage with plaintiff yet 1t
appears from another circumstance stated IN her ALL
That circumstance is the institution by her
OF SUIT Tor divorce from him at tho
time she contemplated ner marriage with plaintiff
which divorce, she says, she believed finally pro-
cured for her just before such marriage the Decree
however. being sent TO her after II took place The
statute which may be said 10 sanction subsequent
marriage by person whose husband or wife has alb
sented himself herself Tor the space OF Gvo years
expressly provides that the absentee must not known
to such person 10 he living during that time.
In such only the subsequen marriage valid until
Its nullity is pronounced The ul belief the death
OF the former husband or wte is the element good
faith required by the statute In order enitle tho
issue OF tho subsequent marriage TO inherit from tho
parent who entitled to contract that marriage.
And this element oil good iaith Is OF con-
trolling Importance In dealing with the rights
Of the parties to the subsequent marriage
against each other In this both parties TO
this action certainly had reason to believe.
II they were not in TACT actually convinced, that
defendants former husband living when this
rage was contracted the defendant because nsti-
tuted suit Tor divorce from him; and the plaintiff
because he himself swears she informed him OF her
desire 70 obtain sucn divorce. That divorce be
obtained for abandonment and both parties were
bound to know that It a mere separation and OF
dissolution ofthe bond OF the former marriage
and they would seem therefore to have contrr cited
ho I'm
union was in force. No observations oil mine add
TO the force OF the mere of tho fact IN order
10 show the full extent OF the legal moral social
wrong committed In this easy violation Of sacred
lawful obligations and no other reason need BIO given
Tor refusing any allowance by amony otherwise
party coniesscdly entering INTO this marriage IN bad
faitn"
WANTS TO REMAIN UNDER ARREST
In Marine Court, Chambers, before Judge Gocpp
somewhat unusual motion was heard Yesterday in Tho
case OF Andrew j. MclIen. Nellen, 1t Is alleged, has
been indicted In the State OF Pennsylvania both Tor
larceny and receiving stolen goods Upon these
charges an application was made by tho Pennsylvania
Governor the Governor OF New York for the ex-
tradition of the accused, and the proper warrant for
that purpose issued. Before It ready TO be-
executed, however, civil suit had been commenced
against Meen by Henry j. sayros, In which an order
Of arrest Issued from the Marine Court, and under
such Mellen arrested by the Sheriff and i'm.
prisoned Lu How Jail This arrest as long as
It held good, prevented the delivery oil Meen TO the
Pennsylvania authorities. The motion yesterday was
to vacatc this order oil arrest that Mclen might
surrender 10 Pennsylvania justice, ard made
in the interest Of tho government OF that State
by Mcssrs. Grant and Lydecker of this city, and
Assistant Corporation Counsel Lcary. IL was con-
tended in favor OF the that the suit Sayers
against the prisoner was not prosecuted in good iath
as with reasonable diligence Judgment might have
been entered therein and execution issued, but such
had not been done; that circumstances the
Court should not allow Its process to be used against
the comfy due the authority OF sister State and tho
warrant OF the Governor of this State II this SUIT
could be prosecuted or not the parties thereto saw
III, then there nothing to prevent the order OF
arrest remaining in force forever the Pennsyl-
vania authorities should thus tail get the at
all. In opposition to the motion Mr. b. =. Herman
argued behalf Of the plaintiff tho civil that
the action was prosecuted in good faith that there
had not been any unreasonable delay; that In any
event the prisoner was the only one who could move
tO vacate the order Tor his arrest and that until he
6t to do so the Court should not interfere
Judge Goepp took the papers, rcserving his decision
to whether the prisoner shall be held civil
justice In New York DO delivered up to crimu al
justice In Pennsylvania
DEGRADED FLATS.
On April IA last Miles Stafford was declared a
bankrupt tho petition OF small portion Of his
HraAi he nafar op.hd h.