, 1879-02-26
~-~ J.
THE COURTS.
tvdia Chandler Falls In Her
"' Suit.
,.,,,ou, by the Appellate cou1t--The
"' M. o. Walker Estate.
,k Letter Correct In Their Dcflni-
'e' linn Of Torchon Laccs.
vsnsrahle Tag Oases--Reoord Of
w." Judgments, New Suits, Etc.

,.nnrfcr 10 tte p'lt !" tHs eepst"'e "'A'H''-
INIT c''e OF .,v,,rn 90. w,,1,.w ~
ltpA ~ CHANDELIER.
uott important question was whether the
~. ...nt. lind Of action was tnnlhtalnnblc wlion
F'..,,l F'ss cruelty was charged. Mrs. Chandler
tN', s".s ,mong other things, tl,at her husband
ests .ss.nc- Ye,,s had bocn guilty Of adultery,
a,s,1 'hst tbc wes under no obligation to live
'9u D. hI,, a, her husband, after having dtscov-
W. ~ ,nch criminal conftsct OH hts part, a',d thas
a.,,he statute Of 1877. providing for separate
9pI. I.,.,,ncc. and that married wnmen who,
'snnt tbejr fault, I've separate from their llus
,',., may he allowed reasonable support,
w. =. -, entitled tu such support, arl could not
na,m,ed OF that right by her husbands offer
sS,,o Ira with her, and treat her in the future
!, II respects properly.
r,e Judge said tl,c question wns by no means
~. Inn, doubt and difficulty. Many Of The au-
M,d,Ie. cited by tho cot,nscl were cases urlsing
sS,, . thc Inv Of dlrore was quite different
t,cm what It WIS IN this stntc. In England,
r,II recently, divorces were not granted from
=; hand, Of matrimony, but only from bed md
s,.,a The nuestien must be decided on prfn-
NJ. r..bcr lban on authority. Marriage cou-
,,no,tcd m that The parties should live together
',s not 1[ecparatc, pnd Il for auy rea-
ra They were justified In living
v,.,,.s, sucl, p courso m,,st bc
dIosrd, not as In furs1,cranco OF the objects
ou.uiage, but US all excuse for tho ron.pcr-
!o,to,utc Of the martial duties. II Il husband
II, guilty Of mn offcnse which gayc his w!fc the
nh. 10 ohtaln divorce, sho was under no
hlr,,!oa 10 continue 10 live with him or to
,,,t him as her husband afterwnrd; neither was
4, obliged 10 o,,ta[n divorce. II she left him
M did not prprcch for divorce, It WIS pr0b-
III hat Honll not be considered ~ desertion
. M Der part which, II continued two years, would
tstjtIe her husband to ii divorce, because the
nup.Inant Ia such ri, notion must not be guilty
be other party to dtvoFcc. But 1t Rts0
III net husband and refused to 1.-Two
y,A him an account Of tbs past conduct nntl
nj 10 account Of his conduct when she left
.ia,-lp other words, II sic refused to forgive
lypsss olense. no matter how repcntant he
d., Il present, ahc could not have under The
ut.srt statute separate maintenance. II sho
Htastd to forgive her husbal.d the law gave her
1uote extensive remedy than sgparate ina!u-
k1lnee,-!t gave her right to 4 divorce, With
fright to alimuny.
lie proceeding for separate maintenance WIS
trndrd an the ,cn that 1t,c t,csreli 10 jivr viii
l., ,bushstf. nn,l not nI,aTt froIn him. md Tint
H. ,t.aon why .hn I1ocs not ilvc with hin, was
i. nrescnt wrongful cuutl,lct, md TINT If hc
,Sonij reform md trent her in iii
respects property, she would re-
tufp But II the Injured vito
ntu.ed to forcre. anfl insisted on leaving, never
!ortuu, the il,cn divorced herself, as fur as
haoEn act toula 10 1t, frOIu llcr husband, arid
eke rtA tbtfiIF,j tn hayn if1p AjIj nf Hntrt tn
M'hera legal divorce which should forever
kpaate them. II, however, she DID not chonsc
~ Wao ;aa uui ansstea On ltninlaniNs tne pai-
IA iup,er ..,a rr T9"" ~" ,'tfn. f ,rt;o' sifo
,]lhouph her h,,sF,ani ,nirht rot h. "iiowet1 ~
rmnain n inosn,uni' 49, ~ w narIn ~ =,
mil re-, therc wss ~, rses,m ,rhv tx 1nv-t ~
thoa}d iii her in mnntninI,Mr sI..i, nn rnn{yc'ai
Eatjon. In lie +" nrcsent fns,snce stra' Ghansilrr
Id .,jd .hc iii III wnnt ,itro.rn Scsn"s. sh.
ri MI xssn sn I'u t no @ "ns 0s eamse me
rt,,c bs conld marry Sonin % III" rIoh,a ,ri.I,..,
iej,w mlplIt riyc ,o + ,itvorrrI t'ns,unn,i 'r ~
rtrr1 spnin ,a,'T nv frart tl,S tso,,s"rcn ~ y
III spprinx for n 'lirn9cc, II shn oS,"i ~ ~ =
difo4ec, i Wis for criminal co,niuct On tc 1,art
ofkef Ausbapi. II tie inv aIlnwc ri him m .fter
uab1ur ''Iu iar 10 ,n,,,, quarry egan' sa1 vs.
II lhe husband wns rca,ly nn'i wiiji,,.
ID i've hta 1viro ""' x,enn:- w. ',S,,, "i'.!
tuopott hsr r,c,'t ~ a., pvEt ,nasntoa', lso aa
~ gone but mere ~ oiYep Eta was not % smtij.i",t
H. oer sOest ws. ~ woula % eTanine to seG whether
n the bjli vas on6t' to th ohopn rrit,isms H.
tsnu.rrr would ic sustained. '' S's
81 order hownycr' ~ 1M was ,1.a. ,nodc in thc ca.c
s,,r 1"as ',,,, ""s NV "sDs tsa ,s ~ LII e@'''
1.. -. 4ae afFiIAA!s COUNT
Asr.is, su;Is optnlons "ern tlet yesterday 10 the
,pth,,s ~, X. Usuft oy Jadgc Murphy Ihe tirst
n.a,s as caso ot Lewis 4. brown W. Fred Krayel,
Mh,ualinh III ~ oa'Y question ot fnct. The Judge
,'a ,s.a a'e evidence dd not support tic yeniEt1
e"''s'e'sea aaa feinanded tic case.
TUE II. o. wALKrn ESTATE.
The case Of Walker IS, Walker VIVA a ,s,l f,1cf1
b1 ,trt Marlin A. Wnlker. wf]n,v ~ Mnrt,n q
N,!ker, asajnst samurI Va,Isr ', ~ a,, ',,has. ~
iafeeover hcr dover In her huefa,,ti'a cstatt.'
The Court below awaricfl hcr .Inwsr IN anvsroi
pies of property, omonf. others Lots Ia n II ni
Inclusive, BIock q NJ Fnrt 1,narhnrn hN,,;s;o,,'
The Comm.ao,,sfs ranor,nJ ti'nt ~, ,,,nnn,t,,
could uot liz suI,diyiirI AMI inrx voa ,oIict,
70 Ascertain the ysnrlv vnIna ~ }t,,o ,stin.n,s
to1sr at4 tlcy re-, nrt,s5 H.. 1osin,rny vnrii',,
Tie jury lDu for ihr ninfntfIs as i'nr a,r',si
do1tt N ihc aboyu-drscril,rrt nTonertv III" ann,
saeuld ihc sora'jcf. J',,rkrr Itrp,vn <. ~,
n41sage be l,eij ievni nnI a I;su m tho
iooStIescrIbstl pruoerrv then W. M, M .,,,xnr
a1ald propcrty'u 'fin. f!nnrt ,h.r mn ar.,a. a
tttrst III favor III Nfra. Woikrr itvinr hnr do..r
NsLa0 year, pnysblc ouurieriy. Thn LcIrs
sea, 81
,ts4Ss ~ sHutnhY said the suit was brought uts-
isi ese. ~ ChaE. II, ol tue Keyisetl Statutes Of
A., ',' a9et' vas applicable only when tts prop
n. II. sap!ect 10 dover coult nut be divided.
,tnst T sst9'apianant, having elected to taku tl.e
~ o1 a Jury, was bound thereby.
n,d't 1,,a q, statutory, act.3u, and Tic