The New York herald., 1878-01-11
Argument on Mrs. Noes Appeal
Against Her Husband.
MARRIAGE BROKERAGE.
In Pursuit Of CorfiScated Con
federate Funds.
SENDING "BLIND" TELEGRAPH MESSAGES.

AIGvme0t
eonsrai Torm in tho case OF Isabella b. Noe against
William +. Noe. The came up on appeal from
decision rendered at Chambers by Juage Donohue,
refusing to plaintiff injunction restrain tho de.
hndant from selling conveying, encumbering or COL
ecting rents Of property Grand and Fory-nrst
psreets this city. In 1872, the painun then being
Ihe owner Of largo amount OF property, both per-
vonni real. privately married to tho defend
nut her mother being opposed to their union. Until
Juno they lived and travelled together In appa-
rent happiness During that month cousin ap-
peared In Paris, where she was with her husband,
with tho avowsd intention Of escorting her to this
country 10 her brother, who was sick. The hus-
band assented and they there parted good friends.
On her arrival here she wrote him aficctionase
letter. but subsequently being warned that her
mothor was endeavoring TO estrange his wife from
him. no TO this country only 70 be
met by coidncss on the part of his
wife aud refusal TO live with him. Then ensucd the
action In which tho application Tor injunction was
made, the object OF which Is twofod, TO havc the
properly apart for her support and havo recon-
veyed In telling story OF the division Of
the property the subsequent division of persons BY
the parties the suit, the peadings differ somewhat
On tho part Of plainti II is claimed that she trans
ferred TO her husband real ana personal estate
amounting 5000 600, except small part mort
gagged 10 secure her mothcr's DOVER This no mas
spent soid leaving only the equity OF redemption
IN three lots which mortgagcd for $23 500, aud
whion produce small amount ouy over The interest
and taxes. This residue Il Is which " Is sought 10
have invested l0r PLAINTIFFS beneht. On the part Oi
IN. vie was possessod OF 600 IN cash Of
whioh equal division was made aud the real es.
tate divided by conveyance 10 him OF what was
supposed 10 be about onc-nau IN value Both, they
cay had been extravagant, and tho defendant unlor
business tnat from time 10 time portions
OF tho property became mortgaged and sold The
plaintiff still holds property corner OF Fourth avenue
and Twelfth street, wbich alter paying an annuity 10
her mother of ABOUT ST. 900 year, leaves her about
Tue samo amount. 1he defendant retains the prop
cry which the subject oi this action On the argu
meut yesterday IL was commended ON the part The
plaintiff nat rules OF the courts of equity both IN
England and this country, require that the husband
out Of his wies estate, make provision lor ner suit
aUlDmain When the husband neglects or re-
fuses provide Tor MAINTAIN his vile, or when he
has shown total incapacty TO manage MS concerns
or disposition wantonly 10 waste his we's property
In such cases ought direct the interest
paid either to The vile or to trustee Tor her
bonehI When the husband has received u part OF the
w,ie's estate and only small part remains, and tho
husband Is so perveise that he Will make COM
petcnL settlement his wife, the Court Will Dot only
stop tue payment OF the residue, but Will even pre-
the receiving the interest OF that residue that II
may accumulate Tor the benefit OF the wife, unless he
II starving wait OF maintenance These principles
have been followed In the courts Tor seventy live
years, and offer 10 provide separate apartments
Tor tho wife is defence. The pre'ence
shat the witc's estate divided equally be-
Swecn herself and the defendant, as stated in his
andxv is contradcted by the plaintiff expressly and
by tho convcyances. "Ihus, - concluded Mr. e. W.
6audford, In argument, plaintn has nothing left
OF NIL her iathers estate valued, when sne married
defendant at $3.50 0O0 except tho property corner OF
Fourth avenue and Twelfth street, which Is mort.
gaxod TO secure her mothers dover aud Mrs Van
Oracn. annuity, AMI does not pay The interest and
taxes. ~
On behalf OF defendant 1t was contendcd by his
counsel, Mr.. john w. Weed, that the complaint did
NOT show sufficient institute Cause OF action
that there had deceit epresentation on
the part Of dcfcndant that the rule AS 10 setting
property apart for the wife must be IN
etdent TO u suit Tor divorce, either absolute or
limited; that there had neither fraud, unfair ad
vantage inlucnce pracsed by the defendant
In socuvng divsion 0i the property; nat the plain.
tin rca party prosecuting the acuon, but is
uuder the influence oi her mother; that the action
brought sustanabe by any OF the authorities,
mono OF which MAINTAIN Tho extraordinary doctrine
that wncn a vile has ample means OF her own, and
has husband who Is ready aud able 10 MAINTAIN her,
Sho VIII be- allowed to what he owns IN his own
right because his management OF u may not have
been entirely judicious.
Al thc close Of the argument the Court took the
papers, reserving its decision.