The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-02-12
THE COURTS.
Connubial Woes of the Smith Fam
lily and Others.
REMlNISCEyCE OF WILLIAM c. GILMAN
Robert L. Case Obtains Writ of IabeaS Cor
puS from Judge DOnOhue.

The list Of divorce cases In the courts seem 10 DO
constantly increasing, and the frequently recurring
motions and counter motions In suits already begun
add TO the time daily occupied py the judges in TINS
class OF litigation. Among tho numerous suits Of
this character which have been recently brought is
that OF Josephine Smith against her husband, Fred
erck p Smith. The plaintiff, Mrs. Smith, is stated,
apracsing physician, and, claiming that her hus-
band abandoned her, she brought SUIT against
him for a limited divorce. The action was
before Judge Donohue u few days ago a
motion Tor almony and counsel feo and also on
the application to confirm the report Ut tho referee
In favor Of allowing Mrs. Smith 500 counsel fee. Mr.
Smith brought action In The Supreme Court against
his vito for dissolution Of the marriage contract Tor
her alleged adultery, which action pending and
was pending at the time this suit commenced by
her Tor a separation on the ground of deserlion.
Judge J. f. DAILY, In deciding tho notion said that he
did not regard the husbands pending action bar
the we's action for separation on the ground OF his
s0andonmsnt or separation because she could not set
up such desorion az defence or counter claim IN his
action tor divorce Tor his adultery. Mrs Smith
married TO the defendant IN 1866 she claims that her
these allegations udge DAILY said :-sIl appears how.
ever, from her testimony and admss hat she
reluctantly lett her husband In October 1885, and went
70 the West with her Two children. letter from her
IL shown In which she expresses u desire live apart
from him, says she will always have sstcrly regard
for MIN, and hopes he Will have chance OF meeting
some VINO will be to HIM truly wife than II
was possible for her 10 be. But she anticipates tho
Same letter that he will DO her an allow
ance tee coming winter, she can make no arrange
ments until she knows. II appears .that she came
back 10 New YORK in November or December. 1875,
on short visit, but returned TO the city perma.
nently IN March, 1876; then she went to hire win
q Mrs.. Calendar and stayed there unul May, 1876:
then she went 10 board IN Stanton street until
September 1876, when she went to the Grand Union
Hotel aud was employed IN the linen room tor three
months; then returned 10 Mrs CALENDARS ana stayed
until May, 1877, finally went TO Mrs Curis', In
luis city, where she 10 partly entertained as guest
sha PARTY "orks LOT hel BOARD. rne husDand's, ac-
ton against her was commenced in Aprii, 1876 This
action by her Tor dcsertion was CON mencei In July,
1871. she has been allowed alimony counsel Ice
Ia tue husbands action In the superior Court The
children were surrendered TO the husband by the vile
January. 1876 no going TO the West. where she was
10 get them. ana he has supported hem since.
He n CLERK In drug receives from IS
10 $l2 per week. and boards himself ana two Oh dren
ana clothes them. he ntercst In his iathars
estate, winch Is not yet determined" Judge Daily,
after commenting upon the facts detailed by HIM
oil the case, denied the motion.
In addition to tho Two Smiths whose marital
troubles given above there other smiths IN
sbe same domestic afction, aud VINO have
sorted 10 the courts Tor judicial determination of
their differences In this case MIS- Fannie J. Smith,
who 10 tho plaintiff, states that she married to
both dead, the fruit OF their union. Their
life went on quite amicably until last June when,
Mrs. smith says she discovered that her husband mad
been unfaithful 10 her, and mad committed adultery
with several women. The youthful and accused
bridegroom could DO found his tather's resi-.
dence IN this city nor al his usual hauns and Judge
Sanford, IN the superior Court Special Term, yester
day granted an order permitting service OF the sum-
mons by publication.
in oraer in the list of marital troubles s the old
sut OF Matilda Morris against her husband, Robert c.
Norris, the iu particulars OF which already been
published IN me HERALD when the tried
some Two months ago. the decision OF Judge Van
Hoesen on the merits o. the questions involved has
been looked forward TO with considerable Interest
account oil the social prominence Of the parties the
SUIT ~ well as on account Of the legal ques-
lions involved. II Will be remembered That tho
parties are both aged ana have been separated Tor
nearly thirteen years, when It Is claimed by Mrs.
Morris her husband Abandoned her and has since re-
fused 70 support her. The was tried before
Judge Van Hoesen in the Court OF Common Pleas,
and he yesterday gave his decision In tue In
his opinion Judge Van Hoesen says:-"rhe wife has
proved her case and would be entitled TO judgment
wore not ivr the statute oil limitations which
her right OF recovery" The Judge further holds
mat a continuing demand the defendant Tor sup
port will not take the action out OF the statute. He
Rays the painu must look for relle from the police
court
John Judd has suit Tor divorce pending against
his wife, Ellen Judd The defendant Is SAID to On
living In Gioucestersnire England. On application
GU behalf oil the piantn Judge Douohue, IN supreme
Court, Chambers, yesterday signed commission Tor
the examination OF number Of witnesses In Giou-
cestersnire, England, among them Charles Francis
Gale, Solicitor and Register OF The County Court of
Cnetcnham. Tho charge against The defendant is
adultery.
Abraham Morgonroth married TO bis wife, Rose
MOrgcnrolh, on the 2dtn oil August 1871 NJ Albany.
About one month aterward his vile was delivered Of
q child, ana Abraham charges that tho child
his own and tina, tho marriage brought about by
fraud He accordin gy brought SUIT against her Tor
DIVORCE ana the defendant answered deny she
had maze any representation and claimed that tho
piantin was fully aware Of her condition before ho
married hcr. Judge Van hoesen yesterday rendered
a decision dssovpg the marriage on the ground mat
the plaintiffs consent was obtained ~ fraud.
Anne Dumaine, Who WAS married ~ George Du-
name tue I'd OF May, 1862 complained that he has
been ana Is now LIVING adu.tcrousiy with woman
banned Caroline Ferrer. She has brought "a SUIT
against him Tor divorce, and yesterday Judge j. n.
Uuly ordered a reicrcnco In tho Gaze.
Emmy u. SmIin Is pursuing EDWIN ID. Smith, her
husband, Tor the purpose of ootain.ng divorce rom
Inn. On tue application Of the vile, Judge Donohuc,.
IN supreme Court Chambers, yesterday made an
order substituting Messrs RcdneId and Hill her at
lar in ma ann