New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-07-26
THE COURTS.
MP COoPER,s MARRIED LIFE.

TESTIMONY or MRS. MkRsHALLs flkSI HUSBAND
The proceedings before ex-Judge Barbour,
A. deermne whether Mrs Marshalrs divorce from her
e husband Cooper valid. were eniivened yester-
a., only by Mr. CoOper's apparent inability 10 under
,and the ouestious put to him cross-examination
Tho nroceeings began by the announcement that Mrs.
p,,cber was stil i'll TO attend Mr.. scribner drly
Ia. "I Am very sorry indeed" Then Mr.. West, the
hroher OF Mrs MARSHALL, corrected his testimony Mr.
scrbner sarcastcally inquiring when aud from whom
No had learned that his testimony was wrong. Mr.. Ten
Evek stated he unable TO produce any other wilt
eses now as all out of the state aud not
amenable TO subpoena. He perhaps only cared 10
croduce one whose name and the object OF
whose testimony he did not feel at present bound
90 oiselose Mr.. scIibner moved that the plaintiff
no compelled 10 close his except Mrs. Pitchers
rossexamination, and after long discussion the
referee decided that must be closed, subject 10 future
contingencies.
Immediately Mr. scribner called Isaac p. Cooper, the
former husband of the plaintiff, 10 the stand. Judge
Fullerton came 10 at this moment aud began hurried
consultation with his associate counsel during which,
two or three times Mr. scribner impatiently said "Wh
Your Honor swear the witness Z" At last Mr.. Fullerton
Withdrew and the witness sworn. He is a man OF
fine appearance though of middle age but had some
what sulen way answering questions which did not
,mpress those present favOrably. In some cases he
broke into the middle of questionable questions were
pat with somewhat provoking deliberation-with his
answer At other times he would require them to be
put two or three times and indirectly often
and after positive answer, change il after the next
oueston At almost the beginning Of the examination.
Mr. Ten Eyck put the question, Did you marry Mrs,
MARSHALL" He answered, No. sir; married Miss
West in 1855" Mr.. Ten Eyck asked. Were you present
AZ Mrs Marshall's examinationi" The witness an
swered -" don't know anybody by the name of Mrs,
Marshall" Mr. Ten Eyck varied the question. always
sDeaking of the plaintiff Mrs Marshall until IL took
the FORM Were present at the examination of Mrs
Marshall, the lady you formerly married and now sit
ting by me L" To which he answered. No, sir"
Mr.. Ten Eyck-" VIII take that answer, Your Honor,
and we all know that II is q lie" ,
Mr. serbner spraDg to his feet and called upon the
referee rebuke such an expression He had not be-
plaintiff from to H. but he had had the courtesy not TO
udce Barbour said such language ought be stopped
and must not be repeated Still witnesses testimony
was true aid his qniboing and trihng with the
After the defendant resumed his seat and tes-
tilted TO the history Of his married life He stated mat
shall years before It, and he believed IT, He found
his wife and Marshall once in her bedroom and he said
70 her This is pretty business" She made ex
PLANTATION. He made no further protest then, out spoke
10 her Of 1t afterwards He ceased TO love her then
o~'Dont you love s,ill ~ After unusually long
decay. the witness answered; . No, SIR" .
10 play cards with her. Mr. Cooper named Russell Hew
lett James Newbod, Henry Green and j. Herbert War
It Was his until he had read it through asked
his for bringing this proceeding and said he
knew that the proceedings tile divorce suit were lille"
gal, ana OF his people spoke to him about IT. The
first bis sstcr last april who ted him ne had
chance redress and TO get divorce from his wife.
He understood the chance to be that her proceedings
were illegal He always knew the divorce was bogus
He did not know any fact in April last that he had not
for three years He took action then because the
opportunity had occurred before. Pressed TO say
what he meant by opportunity said expense
of some kind After some further examination on this
point in which he insisted that this proceeding Gu
trey Of his own ognation, the matter was ADJOURNED
TO this morning
ENFORCING LIABILITIES OF ASSIGNEES.
Judge Van Hoesen. in several cases recently,
has enforcing the liabilities OF assignees for the
benefit OF creditors and holding them to a strict account
In the proceeding of John ID. WenhOz assignee OF Will
liam Doyer to be relieved from his responsibilities,
Judge Van Hoesen gave yesterday decision, refusing
20 confirm the referees report He holds that the referee
has not due proof of the issuing OF proper cta
ton to the creditors The original schedule is not su
Gent proof Of this He should have examined the books
Of the assgnor and the assgnOr himself to ascertain
the names and addresses of creditors. He adds:
Again. there must be some authority given
TO the Court to warrant the withdrawal by tho
assignee of the original papers, and for the
substitution OF copies in their stead. In this
case the assignOr s the sole witness 10 the sigma
lures the creditors to tho composition agreement and
TO release He goes before notary public and him
self proves as subscribing witness the signatures OF
the creditors and then without any other evidence OF
the genuneness of the signatures than the certificate OF
the notary that the assignee has sworn to them he asks
that his bond be discharged IL will be seen that the
whole matter and the interests Of the creditors lang on
the mere word OF single person, and that person The
assignee who asks that bis bond be cancelled and that
he be released He then offers what purports 10 De- ana
what probably Is, COPY OF the notary pub
gether with copy OF the other papers, instead
OF the originals the files of the court Tins Is too I'M
safe method OF doing business TIE matter must be
referred back to the referee TO ascertain by examination
vbster the have ali siSned the eonpositiOn whether
there any advertisement for claims and whether he
creditors were duly cited me original composI,Vh,
the report Of the referee The testimony must be IN
writing subscribed by the Witnesses and returned Win