The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-08-05

Krekclcr; Babcock vs.. Babeock Gardner vs. COBB;
Buess VS.. K,ch: Ryan Vs. Ryan; Aeer vs. Ager; tsr-
deuorook VS.. Sensuer; Bodice vs. Moheypenny
Arnold va Post; Church Of the Redemption w. Grace
Carpenter vs.. Kelly; platt VS.. Platt-
laid'aw w. Schumacher Ia tpis CASE nd
may stand as security. Answer TO he accepted ana
tnc cause 10 DO referred TO near and determihe. NO
granted. II Is difficult 70 lay when ua'e %
servics q complaint is right Inc oder maze WIZ
Hellmer va Hclmer.-Decree OF divorces granted 10
plantn. ..,. IN
notice 10 counsel OF purchaser and OF plantn.
ADrahams Va Hyman-Order Is right 3,u
AewciI vs.. Wood; bonynge vs. waterbury ne rs
VS. Berdcl.; in the matter Of the Western Union Tels-
graph Company. -Opinions ,,.xu
Garaner VS. ardner.-Motion granted. hemorsn-
dum
Wallace W.. Aarks--0rder settled.
Kurnvu ann vs. Hermann. Motion denied
PIatt VS.. PlalL-rhe order appointing ono OF plain
t receivers, rent and care oi premises Is right ~
does not interfere with Inc rece'p' o. ren's ny "eea
L. Co.
MARINE coURT--cHAMBERs.
BY Judge McAdanA
barrow vs. Schnerr; underworld va Toner; Lanin
anu Rand Powder Company Vs. Wcck.-Opintons HE'D
Toe CeluIoid Piano Koy Company VS.. Benniug;
Wood VS.. Hnzlelt; Schustsr VS.. Ds Cunha See In
dorsements upon papers.
Victorson vs.. l4aKanin.-Decison filed.
Devison Dwycr; Same Vs. Kelly; Same va. Garry;
Wendell vs. New YORK Despatch Express Company
Judgments
Mckee W. ScolL-There is no meritorious defence
and plaintiffs technically regular While verisca
tiuu ID not an essential part OF amended complaint
as decided III How, D. 200 Is nevertheless an essen
tial part Of an answer where the complaint ~ ver-
lied. Motion denied.
Ebert Vi. Poeizsch Stutz vs.. Yocman Ackroyu vs.
Powers.--Soi0ns denied
Armrieat va. BaldauL-Complaint dismissed.
Smith VS. NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. dismissed
Angel Vs. Pcterson.-Arrest vacated without costs on
stipulating not 10 sue
Alexander vs. solomon. Motion granted.
Pierce vs.. Conner-Each OF the three counts of
the complaint states an independent cause Of action
u separate action might have beeu commenced upon
either, although there can be but one satisfaction
Motion to compel plaintiff 10 elect denied 90 How, a6l
Tue above decisions finish up all tho business Of
every kind before Judge hcAdam 10 date.
WETMORE DIVORCE SUIT.
Action for limited divorce has been brought IN the
Brooklyn City Court by Charlotte Wetmors against
shipman $. Wetmorc. yesterday motion was made
before Judge Reynolds for counsel lee and amony
pending the trial The papers In the action set forth
that prior to July 2 1871 the parties named catered
Tito engagement Of marriage, and that defendant
was anxious that his father should be kept In
ignorance OF the affair; that when the time
appointed Tor tho marriage arrived tho planuT
boing urged by defendant yielded TO the Impression
that there could be valid marriage without the cere
mony; that he gave her wedding ring, and she hav-
my the Of defendant they lived together
until March last that in 1873 chlld was born 10 them.
After their separation defendant paid So week tow
ara her support, which sum was continued until
short time ago The plaintiff also alleges that on june
husband assaulted her and on the evening of the
same day nc called her at her SISTERS house aad
threatened 70 shoot ner.
The defendant denies all the allegations in the
plant excepting the TACT that he cohabited with her
and tnat the name OF the plaintiff Is Langley and that
she was never authorized to use the name OF
Wetmore lie claims that she was never
introduced rs his wife and that he never
spoke TO her about marriage ceremony; and that
pain.in has harassed him for the purpose OF cxtort
ing mail under threats OF public cxposure that
defendant resides with his parents at No 273 Schermer
horn street.
Judge Reynolds, who hoard argument both
sides yesterday, SAID the defendant had placed him
sell ~ an equivocal position aud that the ailega
tons Of marriage contract had gone far enough
tor purposes OF the motion. Tnc plaintiff was
Titled ~ give her chance to prove her
marriage II they lived together and vile they
were married the eye OF the law The Court granted
the plantn 500 counsel foo and SO per week aimony