The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-06-20
REMARKABLE COMPLICATIONS.
Mrs. Cooper-MnrshsIi's suit for Divorce, and
What Preceded and Followed IL.

The legal complications that have arisen
since suit was instituted by Mrs. Ruth Coop
or, who says that she Is tho widow OF Mr.. John
L. Marshall bid fair to make the case one OF tho
most celebrated in the annals Of divorces. Ex-
Judge Barbour. as referee. has been for some
time taking testimony for the purpose OF ascer-
tanning whether the divorce Of Isaac b. Cooper
ank Mrs. Cooper in 1875 was not obtained by
collusion. Mr.. Caldwell. who was Mrs. Coop
er's lawyer in the divorce proceedings. was ex-
nmined yesterday with reference to his visit to
Long Branch with Mrs Cooper. He said that
no went there for the purpose Of learning
whether Mr.. Cooper was for or against thcm in
the pending proceeding. Cooper refused TO
talk with him except in tho prcscnce Of his
lawyer. but after long interview with his
wife, said: am with the party that pays me
the most money" On cross examination Mr..
Caldwell denied that he tried TO obtain Mir.
Coopcr's ass distance I'm the effort otthis former
wife to obtain Il share Of John I. Marshalls
estate.
some light upon the manner in. which the
div.rce OF the C9.9pers WIS obtained was given
Cooper TO defend the suit before the referee.
W. H. Ryan. He demurrod at first to giving
Instructions were made TO him rs counsel. But
Mr. Cooper. who was present yesterday. with
drew the seal q secrecy; and then Mr.. Alkcr
Cooper that the suit was not TO be defended.
because he had no defence. aud wished the mat
was Informed by Mr.. Alker that he could let tho
suit go by default, and did not need lawyer.
mental condition, saying that he recognized the
fact that his wife. would be- successful in her
suit that u was matter OF not much conse-
qcnce to him II she did. because he had been
harassed by her in many different ways, and he
was reduced TO such n state OF mind that he
would be glad TO get away from New York and
formed that the appearance of counsel in the
divorce suit would expedite the conclusion. Mr..
divorce from his wife on the ground Of adultery
4 he hal desired. but admitted that he had con-
doncd the offence by Capitalization.
shown that the referee was not present to hear
the ,icsiimo1y; put th3t the witnesses were s Sx-
Caldwell's Office, mainly In his handwriting;
that the referee subsequently sworc the wit.
ncsses to the truth OF their dopositions. and
that tho testimony was so loosely taken that ho
had notified Mr.. Cooper that II the divorce was
attacked on account OF irrcgglarity II that re-
stood from the first that he was not expected to
win the suit. he could mo- say that there WAS
colluson between Mr. aud Mrs. Cooper. He did
not witness any wranging between the parties.
such "a II usual In divorce suits. He could not
by the referee during the examination.
II was also said Yesterday that the summons
to Mr. Cooper and the complaint in his wife's
suit for divorce were served on the 18th Of
March, 1875. Tho usual twenty days allowed
for an answer WAS waived and 1t was nut ia the
next day. The referee was appointed imme-
entirely in his absence. and his report was hlcd
on April IA. so that tho divorce was procured
Cooper appears 10 have been in full possession
Of evidence of his wife's adultery with Mar
shall. He had sued his wife on the ground Of
adultery with Marshall which be COMPROMISED
with her, and he had sued Marshall on the
ground of adultery with his wife. which hs had
com promised for $500.
Proof was offered 10 show that Mrs Cooper
boarded NJ a Mrs. Witherstone's and that Mar
shall visited her in her bedroom there before
ALLEGED IiNnrrn f'pplgr =
Mithcrstone sued Marshall for 273 meals served
to him in Mrs. COoper's bedroom.