The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-06-05
THE COURTS.
A Wife's Complaint Against a
Recreant Husband.
DIVORCE IN HIGH LIFE.
One Of the Products OF Reading
Dime Novels.

oliver II. Milderberger, young man OF high con-
nections and possessed Of considerable means. was
married the 2Otn OF June, 1852 TO Vasht y. Miller
Mr. MiiderDerger being the OF the iate Oliver Il.
Milderberger, the rweniy-third street millionaire,
and moving az The time IN tho very best OF New York
society, the wedding brilliant social affair and
y long and happy life was predicted for the newly
wooded pair. There is every 10 suppose that
tort long time these hopeful predictions were fully
verified. Certainly, according to the papers IN
the case, there nothing in their marital
up 1872 which tho social world would
GARD at all improper noteworthy. Mr. and
Mrs. MiIderberger lived quietly and peaceaby
In fashionable ncghborDood surrounded by
all the luxuries wealth could furnish.
At the time OF the marriage Mr.. Mderberger took his
wife to Europe, where they remained two years. They
then returned TO this city, and AFTER three years.
residence here Mr.. Milderberger. firing OF the
mcuotony OF home ME. again visited the other side.
taking his wife with him. On thor return from this
second trip be purchased house ON Twenty-third
street ana went to Housekeeping the first trouble
seems 90 have ars on the summer OF 1877 when, as
the now unhappy wife alleges, Mr. Miidcrberger
abandoned her, and devoted himself with great
AssIduiy 10 other women, and neglected TO provide
for her aud heI family. she says THAT for several
years he lived under assumed names with
other women. Sho states, iurlher, that they
have mad two children born during their mar
ria9e-one named Victor aud the
other a daugh ter named Marguerite, who have since
her husbands Ut lived with her Hunter,
upon the Catsf ill Mountains, where they now reside
Soon after u 10 alleged aban donmens Mrs., Milder-
berger commo acsd SUIT against her husband in the
Court OF Conn Pleas for limited divorce, charg
ing the aband and his refusal TO support ner
as the reason for bringing the suit The passed
through the sual stages OF motions and counter mo-
mons until u was finally referred TO Mr.. Nathaniel
JARVIS, Jr, TO take proofs and report to the Court
Meantime IN Defendant put in an answer generally
denying 81. w,is's allegations and specifically
and entert aimed much that could
not submit TO- 1t. He says she would
IN debt. To such extent did she carry nor .ex-
travagance hat he obliged advertise her In the
Stewart 4 To-, various jewellers aud others not to
u ust her. The referee, after hearing all the tcs
same be fore Chief Justice DAILY in the Court Of
mon PIE as, Special Term motion TO confirm this
report The Chief Justice yesterday rendered de-
csion confirming this report In his opinion he
conn tents upon the evidence at length. He saws tho
tesn mopy, among other thugs, shows That the
deie ndant had lived with other women under as
suaed names he agrees with the referee IN reject
int the proofs as to the alleged immoral conduct Of
the plaintin and thinks the testimony 70 This elect
highly improbable and suspicious. The referee allows
hall Of the defendants income, amounting 10 S7,40o
per annum, the wife Tor support.
Judge Daily thinks that this amount is not unreason-
abe, The plaintiff has cast upon her by the De-
feadant the support of their children The chill
dren, ho says grown up, but unable to support
themselves, because OF the manner in which tney
have been brought up, and for winch defendant,
as their father must regarded chiefly respon-
sibe. Judge Daily then goes 10 say :-.sIne plain
IN IS ing in place she has purchased in the Cats
Kill Mountains which was bought by her when she
and the defendant living together and where ne
lived with her and ner children until he deserted them
both IN 1872 In Of the manner which the de-
fendant and the plaintiff lived since
their marriage and have brought up their
children The plaintiffs present mode Of lie
and annual expenditure not extravagant,
and follow that because the defendant IN
slsls upon nviug apart from his wife and children.
whose companion and protector no ought TO be- that
their means OF living must DE greatly snted and That
they should practise severe economy that he may
enjoy tue benefit oil larger income." As, however,
the defendant has always been living on an income,
the wnoie amount OF which he has spent year
lao received IL, the Judge thinks IL may not be- his
power 10 her "a 000 the amount OF Income due
from the time the suit commenced, ana which by
the refcfees report Is 70 be pad but there notn
Ing IN the evidence TO show that he cannot comply
with this direction the report respect also
confirmed with leave, however, to tho defendant 10
apply TO the Court Tor such relief may be equIt-