The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-03-14
THE MARSH DIVORCE
A Decree Entered in a Jersey Court
Against the Faithless Wife.
AN APPEAL TO A PARAMOUR
Vice Chancellor Van Fleet on the Mar.
rage Relation.

The divorce case OF Marsh va Marsh. which created
such excitement at the time OF the hearing, has been
decided in favor OF the complainant, Mr. George w.
Marsh The parties move in the best society and are
we'll known in Brooklyn and Now York. Mrs Marsh,
pretty blonde, is the daughter OF Henry c. Foster,
wealthy beer dealer OF Brooklyn. She considered
quite belle before her marriage with Mr.. Marsh.
Yesterday Vice Chancellor Van Fleet read the decree,
which contains brief resums OF the evidence aud
states at length his views OF divorce.
DECREE
The complainant seeks "A divorce from his wife on
the ground OF adultery. Tho adultery alleged to
have been committed while the parties resided IN
Jersey City. Tho husbands business kept him IN New
York three nights Of each week until midnight
The other four were spent at home. The defendant
and her alleged para became cd about thu
LIST OF June, 1876 From about that time they were
together TWO or three evenings Of each week, generally
II not ALWAYS when the com nj was absent rhcv
met either IN Mr.. Cooks house or in tho street. \
servant girl who lived In the compliments family
during tho whole period OF the intimacy swcars that
the person with whom tho adultery Is charged TO hav0
been committed came 10 Mr. Cooks almost every
night; II the complainant was at homo, the
defendant would stay In but II no was away she would
90 down and they would go out together; that sho
threw notes TO HIM out OF the window; that she at
tended evening picnics with him, and such Coca.
sions when she was with them In charge OF the
ondans babe Inc defendant told nor to address her
the wife OF the alleged paranour, by calling her
Mrs -, " mentioning his name This witness also
to declarations by the defendant fully admitting
the adultery II Is undisputed that the evening OF
July 10, 1876 these parties met by previous appoint
ment on street corner In Jersey City, walked
short distance together, tnen TOOK street
elevator by which the ascent to Jersey City Heights
is made uscended the elevator and passed along tho
public way Tor nearly quarter OF mile. then turned
into pathway and went to place situated IN u
ciuded spot, distant from 100 to $50 yards IRON the
public way. Tho husband had requested three persons
TO watch them on this OCCASION two OF whom pursued
up to the place. Ono of them after they
reached the place no crawlcd ~, within eight
yards OF them nd sufficient II evidence Is be.
leved to establish thor quit beyond all doubt. Tho
alleged paramour has been examined witness
behalf OF the complainant He swears that he
but admits that he confessed to tho complainant ha
had had but says the confession was made under
tear OF threat that he could be sent State
Prison. the mplainant representing to him that ho
could prove the adultery by four Witnesses He also
admits that he knew the complainant willing
he should associate with his wife and had 'hard feel
ings against him Tor doing SO. Hc also admits that
since this suit commenced tho defendant has
written several notes TO him which were delivered by
an unknown man, and that alter reading them they
returned TO the unknown person at his request
He also says In September last tho postman lott at
his residence letter addressed to him. without sigma
ture, dated Brooklyn September II, 1876, In which
the wrItcr says
ACHING FOR HIM.
saw you last my heart aehed YOU Il made cold chill
rnn Through me for IT should happen to YOU
My lie would be blank without II
may come have sewers. tines tried % Has gu; You
Ty'
this thing over N"~ why do yoa not not speak plain"
a s sSs sa TO ss" pn; Def os
way. an anxious TO Sc. ysS Xp.wsr this ris?,
n anS Sud than 20 and x
10 sars n the ne and anS best Sn
aching be your neck, my precious
darling. remain, AS ever. yours TIL death.
LETTER MEANS.
He further says ho has the defendant
write, but no subsequently stated he had received
notes from her both before and alter this letter
received and that when he received this he suppos
she had written H. IL their intercourse had been pur0
aud innocent II would have been impossible Tor such
thought TO enter his mind lilo could not havo sup.
posed she wrote II unless he knew her mind and heart
were utterly dcpravcd 1t contained plain demand
upon him 10 declare whether when TINS divorce
was over, hc intended 10 marry her or not, and also
declaration as PLAIN as language could make il that
their Relations had been criminal wife who writes
10 man not her husband ani with whom
she has associated nightly at other places than
her home In the absence OF her husband ''You know
that love you, for have proved II TO you many
ways" 'my arms are aching to be around your neck
my precious darling" assures him OF u ustlul love
and reminds him that he has had many proofs OF In
their licentious enjoyments. Tho letter ndcd
paramour of the repeated attempts the writer had
made TO d nd what his Intentions toward her;
II confessed lccherous love tor him, and appealed
his rccolcctions Tor the many proofs that had been
gwen OF IT, 1t was impossible Tor him TO believe toe
defendant had written IL unless all these him
internal evidence OF It's authenticity. 1t spoke OF
secret transactions In which they alone were tho
actors, and unless its statements were known 10 him
to be truthful he could not have supposed she had
written it. The compliments brother who swcars
that he Is acquainted with the defendants handwrt-
ing says he believes the letter by the de-
fcndanI Her father swcars he does not think she
wrote II, while tho person 10 whom II was sent, and
who had been In the habit OF receiving notes II her
says whcn he received II no supposed she had written
have compared II again and again with letter
in evidence admitted TO have written by the de-
fendant, and am compelled to say that cannot get
rid OF the conviction they we're both written by tho
same hand.
THE MARRIAGE RELATION
Civilized government everywhere rests upon tho
marriage relation. The courts should never dissolve
the relation except upon full, clear and conclusive
proof the OF uivorce. judgment OF divorce
should never be pronounced upon doubtful proofs If
mistakes are committed they should be committed In
favor OF the continuance OF the relation, 70 matter
parties concerned. Snors should understand that
marriage is sacred and inviolable Ia the eye OF
the law and Will be broken by
tho except the proofs make the path OF duly
plaiu and clear. l have considered this with
earnest desire to ascertain the truth | confess hav3
examined IL with hope that might be able TO reach
IA conclusion that the conduct OF the defendant had
been only mprudent and not criminal. But tho proofs
viii not pcrmiit They force mo to the conclusion
that the dc cndant Is an adultress and must dc.
clare A divorce u vinculo will be advised
The Chancellor directed the complainant's counsel,
Mr. W. ID. Daily, TO enter his decree