The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-03-23
NIX. AND MRS DIcKIE DIvoRCED.
Judge Days Crnici.m OF the wines Conduct
md IIer I.ciIers TO Her IIusbnnd.

The report Of the referee in the divorce
suit " Edward Y. Diclic against Mary T.. Dickie.
in favor Of the plaintiff was confirmed hy Judge
Joseph /. DAILY yesterday. Mr.. Dickic married
Miss Mary T.. Robinson in 1854. Both families
were wealthy. the wif-'~ father being n mcr-
chant in this city. Soon after the marriage Mr..
Dickie took \. d. Brinkcrhoff as partner in the
ghiss importing business Brnkerhofr had
been tho playmate Of Mrs. Dickic in her child
hood. and subsequently. it is charged her
youthful lover. Mr. Dickic and his wife lived
in the st. James Hotel in 1872. and. suspccting
his wifc'- uufnithfulncss separated from her.
In his complaint Mr. Dickic charged that a
guilty intimacy between his wife and Brinkcr-
hon wns begun in 1853. and continued until the
fall ot 1872. When h' first accused his wife a
mote. written 10y her and then torn. was found
which read.
fri, nd, the scandal has been It'd to -. am sus
tcctinl II came i'or \ H. Ncctus place q siSth
avenue Is taking 'h'nt % almost iian,' Wha, "i,
possible, Tie salh,r ,d deny all iia.l ~, possible
soon aftcrwarl Mrs. pickic wrote to her hus-
band ~ follows:
n,m NnWsr lge iin', .cna me alI,my thing, s,ar
"I,n,Y' 'Wiiii,t,.o pr,-,ier son ,iink o,,r aid
taxi me a.,iu snao, r'ih9s iu- as You want me-
S Sicc MI ic a,'i r"c nroin u ihavc .inncd
S@S sI a ny 'l . I'll az "a my S%iy viii Do
ind rt v 80. far ,~r., ihat am trniv p,nitemt
Those scraps vu 'dlli Of nu, was never scnt made
ro om aione aui w ion. YOU w..f You can trust me
And now la-k llor nogsi,encs. IT, m YOU both amt
aud q, me while WI be ,nthul unto assi. shall
ncNcrg 40 nstraN again hop" tod Will perhaps Tor
| give me ami bring IT, to-ctlrt AGAIN
Judge Daily. IN charging the jury said:
:. The lsrn.a Of he yas egou9 Of t,.umsuy taken in
adultery swe founded. or the defendant is the victim
known ~ nioial annals That the former and not the
lron the implications cnutai"ed in these letters the
r,iercc has Justly lad var dsr stress No crime Is
which The writer derlure. hut II /, regarded as sicicnt
To- justly her h1,nsn and hcr son In putting her away
IA Of The world 20 some distant 500, II lorrvcnss be
extended and The family ie rrt XII AT lie wriiers
prayer the letters not merely cuunns Tor rcstora
woman would WRIT even II unustv accused bv n Too
ealous and susceptible husband; hut they distinctly
tie innocent would not only express, but could
never feel
where the truth lies respect Of the testimony 10
s,er adnrrou, ncrceure they refer to paper ~hieh
hurried me ,sasc written to guilty friend" but subs.
There buy one such aret IN III. case !. ~ po-scssi
Of her husband. and I've tact thnt he had discover Il
could he inferred nat iaf,r uniavorahv Nor
adnt and refers g. u unN 20 show that 10y not despatch
h"sum a. ahor her ras conduct 80 much. that rather
tan nay, any further communication with her friend.
dcn,,f,d its eon,.r,. are u aro,, r,S,, 'u,s
ls ialrri write n, lti,r 10 Tie g paraien oi The
or some period " uiuc leforc. of lai.n leiwt,nic.
'niant AMI some man. and. with IL reference 90 this
testimony 1t Nctsii osborn ana serior a. T. he VISIT.
g. ne is'ieuatun huuc u 1872 us before the discovery
br her Ma taud oi defendant. suit.
judge Daily. after instnuring somr improbable
testimony. said that the letters of the defendant
10 her husband turned the scale Of doubt.