The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-05-27
FREE AT LAST.
opened

DECISION BIZ JUSTICE DyKMAN IN THE ROE
DIVORCE suIr-THE PLAINTIFF AWARDED
PERMANENT SEPARATION AND TIE CUSTODY
OF HER CHILDREN.
The somewhat sensational suit, commenced before
JusScc Dykman, at Ncwburg, Orange county, some
weeks since, in which Mary H. koc sought separa-
ton from her husband William J. Roe on the ground
OF cruel and inhuman treatment, has AT length re-
suited victory for the plaintiff. Owing to the
social standing parties the progress OF tho case,
ms fully forth from time TO imo in the HERALD has
been watched with little interest by the people OF
Orange aud adjoining counties. At Supreme Court,
Special Term, in White Plans, Weslchestcr county,
yesterday, Judge Dykman rendered his decision IN
the case granting the plaintiff judgment OF separa-
ton IRON bed and board forever, and also awarding
her the custody OF the Two children. The following
is the decision in crenso:--
THE DECISION
This action presents unpleasant spectacle and
devoves upon the Court very disrgrecabe duty. Tho
parties to 1t are both persons OF culture and intel
iigence and occupy very nigh social position. II Is
much be regretted that their marriage has not
suited well, there seemed TO be open before them
lie great pleasure and happiness TO themselves ana
great usefulness to others. The testimony however,
opens up sad case OF matrimonial infeicity and n
seems TO be nothing lett to them nov but the
remedy which the law must administer. The plaintiff
has exhibited her compliant 10 the Court and asked
Tor separation aud separate maintenance and the
CUSTODY OF her two children The controlling testi-
mony that OF the parties themselves. IL Is true
that ihey are both more or less contradictcd
and less supported by other Witnesses; yet rs
well they knew the truth none we'll as
they have told It, Tho paintin testies TO numerous
acts OF personal violence and injury and threats Of
violence which, II carried into execution would nave
resulted IN her death. The defendant denies but very
OF cruelty to which the plaintiff testified
and lett her testimony standing In almost It's full force.
1t necessary here To refer TO the testimony IN
tail. IL shows both bodily harm and mental suffering OF
a decisive character II dscoscs clear case OF cruel
aud nhuman treatment OF the painin by tue defend.
ant and also such conduct on his part as renders IL
unsafe nnu improper Tor ner 10 coEabi with him. An
cndant toward his vile by ciam that the defendant
subject TO attacks OF lever which rendered hun
dcrous and that his acts OF cruelty and threats Of vo
ence perpctraIcd while he THIS condi ton.
The this claim first. that the proof do
not up TO II and IN the next place, II would not
be defence II 1t did. The law Will not obligc mo
plaintiff submit to personal injury and violence and
threats ami danger OF death from the defendant be-
cause they 10 her only In his moments OF de-
lrium. On The contrary the greater wonld be the
necessity tor separation. Our law provides that IN
M action separation the defendant may prove in
his Justification the Ill conduct OF the plaintiff also,
that establishing such def, nee TO the satisfaction
Court the bill be dismissed Tie defendant at
tempted 10 establish rccrm NATION der ih
law and Jailed. IL is quite true that instances
were shown in which the conduct Of the plantn waa
accordance with the propriecs OF her position,
Of being aggressive attacks on her they
MANIFESTATIONS o anger pfovokcd by the miscon
duct OF the defendant toward her IN almost every
case My conclusion is that the plain IN is entiled 10
judgment OF separation from bed and board forever.
In relation to the children, one Is little gir OF about
years and tho other little boy oil two years.
These now require their mothers constant care
and she must retain thor custody. Findings
must be drawn ami presented TO the Court In accord
with ths decision, and then the question OF all