The New York herald., 1878-03-13
DIVORCED.
Miss Morrieon's Marriage
with Lopez for Fraud.
JUDGE VAN BRUNT'S DECISION.
The Spaniard Committed to the
Tombs for Perjury.


her and Joseph Lopez in April 1877, annulled on the
ground Of fraud, was continued before Judge Van
Brunt, without a Jury, in Supreme Court, Special
Term yesterday. As upon the occasion oi almost all
similar trials In this city, large crowd Of interested
spectators attracted to the Court. AS on zoe
previous day. the Morrison side OF the case was repre-
sented by Mr.. Thomas E. Stlman. and Lopez by
Messrs. Gibbons Byrne.
On The part OF the plaintiff the first witness Of
the day called Henry G. Schultz ho testified
that had followed Lopez to houses OF bad repute sub.
sequent to the marriage, and also that on one occa-
sion he had seen him meet a lady at Forty-second
street near Reservoir Park. whom he was subse-
quenty informed was Sarah ). Lillis tho alleged
conspring chambermaid
Frederick L. Mulligan had also watched Lopez from
point point In the city, tracing him 10 places Of
similar character.
The plaintiff was then recalled and corrected her
former testimony as to rot knowing Mrs. Mason and
a Mr.. Connolly. She now stated that she did know
them and with this her counsel rested her side Of the
case.
THE DEFENCE.
Counsel for the defendant then made formal mo-
tion dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
testimony was insufficient TO support It's allegations,
but the Court denied the motion without hearing ar
gument and counsel Immediately proceeded with the
examination Of witnesses on his side.
The nrst witness the Methodist minister who
performed the marriage ceremony, Rev. Dr. Tiffany.
He said he performed the ceremony sought TO
be annued The 4th OF April 1877, in the
morning; they brought with them witness named
Eugene Brown, and medical doctor who lived In the
same house called In rs the second witness; the
plaintiff said shs wanted to be married, he then
married them and gave the usual certificate. 1t
further appeared from the Doctors testimony that as
the ncwy married couple were about to depart
a.. bCh ,na ul,of
fully wrapped package. Gradually unfolding the
elaborate paper .wrappings envelope was discov
ered on winch inscribed this language:-"I en-
days and reward you richly" Tho envelope
tanned 81 which the Doctor appropriated as his mar
riage fee.
The next witness was Lopez he denied absolutely
the statement of plaintiff TO their Lrs acquaintance
having been made through the upstairs girl Ills and
dened also all that had been said in relation to their
first meeting in the basement of Mr.. Morrisons house
aud what had transp,red He said he first
acquaintance OF Tho psintin by meeting her walk
INK on Broadway; he spoke to her and made an ap
spondence; they had frequent meetings thereafter,
marriage, which had been talked OF between them
during six weeks oeoret occurred she being anxious
It and he not; her reasons for marriage were that
she was unhappy at home and with her sisters, and
her father would not consent to her marriage while he
lived. The witness then denied all the testimony
against hin-os to his being 'Caforna Joe, the as.
serron that his object was to get money from Mr..
Morrison, that he knew Sarah Liills otherwise Juan
that hC sought the latter 10
bring about the marriage or promised her any coni-
pensation for dong so--his acquaintance with her
was only as blind IN visiting plaintin at the
latter's suggestion, and the borrowing OF the $25
III the same way. He denied all the alegs.
tons against hir to living in dsreputaoie houses
denied that he was ever married or had any Other
wife; that he had ever inquired as TO Mr. Morrson's
property spoken with any on the subject, aud
that no was wiling TO take caro- OF the pam
TIFF
As Lopez retired from the witness stand Judge Van
Brunt gave MIN the some what suggestion
IN lanva ia go
present animation That no might consider him.
THE cHAMBERMAID's STORY.
The next witness called 70 testify Sarah j. Lilis
the chambcrmaid The first knowledge Of Lopez she
out her passing the street by Miss Morrison the
beau of the latter, and she subsequently saw him at
ADVISED MISS Morrison to marry him, bu, on the
trary had opposed IL SO lar as II be-
came proper ior her 70 give any advice
letters Tor Morrison directed to Lopez but only
three had She letters to him por
sonaiiy-one before the marriage aad two alter
While Miss Morrison confined in ner room by ner
father the first letter she delivered TO Lopez; Miss
Morrison sent five cents worth OF crackers as
an excuse, with Instructions TO follow Lopez and de-
liver the letter; the s25 were loaned at the
request Of Miss Morrson she da h,a not a 'cola
with Lopez; never expected TO got anything from
any one, the repaymeD Of tho money she ioaned
the marriage she stated IN conclusion that she had
SUIT pending against Mr.. Morrison Tor defamation Of
siderable length as to dates, but without materially
changing direct testimony.
Mrs. Cook Donohuc. oil whom 1t was said she had
threatened to ''freeze tue old man OUT" having
| avoided the subp9nss OF defendants counsel and
failed to respond 10 their call, the testimony here
ended both sides.
rnE CASE CUT SHORT.
Mr.. Byrpe, the part oi tue defendant briefly
| summed up, but before counsel tor the plaintn had
had an opportunity gather himself INTO Oratorical
attitude Judge Van Brunt was on his ieet ana stated
that thought he could dispose OF the case without
THE JuDcEs DECISION.
After paying a compliment 10 the counsel for de-
fendant Tor the married deIicacy with winch they had
treated the platinum while on the witness stand, not
withstanding the case presented temptation 10 do
otherwise, no proceeded 10 state the law governing
the dissolution OF the marriage contract on the ground
OF fraud The point was that II the consent Of
omo o,ner ''t The ean,rnct might bo annued tho
com plant alleged cohaOitation aud the answer
denied everything except tho marriage; YET on the
trial IL Was pretended Dy no that there had 0een
cohabitation. On this point Lopez must have
sworn falsely to matter within his knowledge, and
unuer rules OF evidence all his testimony must DO
rejected. Very little more reliance coulo be placed
on testimony OF plaintiff, as her manner of giving
IL was more that OF young girl OF Twelve years than
young lady OF twenty.three, aud In many respects
manitestly incorrect Throwing out the testi-
mony oi both. there was yet sufficient IN the
case 10 that the intent oil Lopez not IN good
faith to live up 10 his marriage contrac but 10 use II
the purpose OF extortine money from the plainth
father 10 have obtained the consent Of Mss Morrison
to the CONTRACT, with only TINS end In WOW his
part, her consent by fraud, which in law
lnvaIldueS the contract. Inc Creult tuken Lopez
for non-cohabton may or may not be just as he may
have thought II c0haDitation had taken place all his
chances money gone, as the consequences ol
his fraud could not now, be entirely wiped out and
the parties restored 10 their original positions. With
these Views Court considered that the pantin mad
made boy on all peradventure case emitting her
10 the judgment asked Tor by her
| Lopez then committed to the custody OF Detec-
tive Field, of the District Attorneys Office, to be
signed TO the Tombs to await the action Grand
Jury the charge Of perjury IN default oil 81, ,00C
bail His counsel sought To explain That the alleged
| UNI me-
peaangs which Lopez did not perceive, and asked tC
| have his nominal custody. TINS tho Court refused,
decide.
The defendant then departed for prison, the plain.
| tI Tor her pome, and tho court room soon emp
| tod Of the crowd and the iouI
| A FORSAKEN WIFE.