The New York herald., 1877-02-18


sign the paper He sent for his clerk and had docu-
ment drawn up, by which was to have the youngest
child to be allowed 500 per month"; and IN considera-
ton OF this give up my right TO what belonged
to me by my marriage settlement This last !
did not understand at the time. The document
was sun Sunday. ' On Monday morning let, v,neland
with grief which cannot express but was imps!led
10 hope that IL was an escape from misery. con,
suited with my counsel, Mr. II. b. Brewster. and
showed him the articles Of separation. He told me
had signed away my own and my chdren's rignt
10 my property. returned TO vneland ~ ask
my husband II this true. Ho said 1t was. ! asked
him how he could treat me so cruelty. He TOOK pen
affect tho jonture property bu. only the income"
She then saysi-Alone and without money, bu lnc re.
or s oss sum naa gssr o1
to Vineland 10 find, however, that bis conduct anu
his words had spread hrougbout the vlaee the report
that was insane and that my insanity was the theme
OF general village gossip On occasions OF alterca:iohs
which arose he would ring the bell for the servants
and bid them hold me dangerous lunatic. The
nrst time he ala this he had seized letter whlch
had neen reading tired 70 a wrssI u IRON nrs @ the
bell. saying had attacked him.
THE SHOOTING or cARRrTH .
by Isud:. on Tho 10Th Of March, 1873 Il rushed TO
the street," she says, land said 10 my husoano,
'what, IN Gods name, have you donef' He put ms
arms around me. consoled him a. best couio anu
went with him TO jail"
Tho petition very lengthy. but the FOREGOING ex.
give the ph OF the causes which led to the sep
aration. There arc 500 pages OF testimony.
THE ANSWER OF LANDis
n.
wife are living in state OF separation hat there has
been separation since our marriage except such as
resulted from occasional visits and absences oy US re-
fpectively from home ut Vineiand. ana one par.
tcularly referred 10 and agreed upon by paper writ
ing bearing date the Both OF January, 1919,
and the present absence o! the SAID petlnener.
the particulars OF which stated and which deny
is the separa intended or contemplated by the
statute OF 1860, and which Is sought TO give jurisdiction
to Your Honor in like this. Ideny her right TO
live in state OF separation or that 10y her deterin
nation she can create such relationship between u.s.
4. I hus hv dQge n u
children establish legal Claim or rght 10
take the children from their home or the GUS
tody OF their father. deny the allegation OF cruelty
made IN the said petition. cannot here more spe-
cihcay deny H. us no specific charge has been or IS
made, but | DO affirm that there is no foundation
whatever Tor such charge declare that the SAID
Clara Meade Lands Is OF such character and habits as
He then accuses her OF having neglected the Children
during his absence IN Europe and at several other
times 'She threatened at one time to set the house
on fire. 10 poison me and the children-to shoot ma
ARGUMENT COUNSEL.
Messrs Courtanct Parker and samuel II. Grey APP
peared for the plaintiff and exChanceor Williamson,
Mcssrs b. +. Brewster ofPhadelpha, and J. II. Nixon
Mr. s. H. Grey opened the case for Mrs. Lands by
reviewing the testimony, which was very volumnous,
Mr. Brewster next spoke, saying that the proceed
ngs were under statute OF tho State which provided
that OF divorce separation, children under
the age of years could be committed to the care
OF the mother, II she be proper person. He IN
sisted that the word ''proper'' meant suitable.
The old law, he SAID, gave the custody OF
changed, so that the mother, Il she was
u suitable person, should have the children until they
OF the age OF seven years He sara that his
Honor was common law judge and was limited TO
the provisions OF the act OF lsG0 The revision oil 1874
provided that all laws not Incorporated therein were
repealed that under tho revision the disposition OF
the children left with the Chancellor. In this
there is not the condition Of separation that
the law contempla,cs and the inconeruity
is sufficient to show that the OF 1860 Is neon
with that OF 1874 and the authority OF tho act
OF 1860 cannot be exercised An Affirmative statute
Mi nUuftV In g
custody Of her children and the question was ls she
proper person TO have such cares Suspicious exist
tribunal And existing suspicion Is sufficient
ground Of refusal to grant her request for
and welfare OF tho children The law does not con-
template anything that will break up the marital re-
latoD Tho lady lett her husband when fife of Her
husband was IN danger from vindicating her own
honor. Is she proper person. then aud what con
sideration has she at the hands OF the Courty She
the children, she says because she loves them,
yet she wanted to go Europe and leave them. She
neglected them at Cape May He referred TO hcr carry
ing pistol aud other charges saying that they must
be considered IN the decision.
Ex-Chanccllor Williamson made able argument
for the defendant suggesting that the following ques-
tions OF law DO submitted 10 the Supreme Court
That the prosecutrx not being III the State the Court
has not jurisdiction. 2. As TO jurisd'ction II must
appear that the statute o 1860 has not been repealed
3. Is the act OF 1860 repugnant to that OF lS74y
Hon. CourtIandt Parker concluded the argument
expressing satisfaction thnt the TEDIOUS controversy
was nearly ended All the questions were settled cx
cept one--that she had broken the law IN leaving
Charles X Iandis and was therefore beyond tue pale
the statute. He rected the facts OF the case and
claimed that she suitable person and resident
New Jersey because her legal settlement WAS within
the State. although she had temporary domicc out OF
IL. The habit and character OF the mother and not
wealth OF the father were TO be considered. Here
was nothing but an allegation OF cruelty on one
side and wantonness on the other yet the gentleman
from Pennsylvania wants IL understood that she has
not been unfatnlu TO her marital VOWS, but says
have covered her with suspicion and therefore she Is
suitable person. The law calls for proof and you
must prove she vile before you can deprive her OF
the children that God gave her He argued that the
law claimed she mad right to her children and that
she was Il proper person TO have charge Of them.
Judge Reed took the papers ana reserved decision.