New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-07-31
THE COURTS.
NOVEL QUESTION OF DIVORCE LAW.

| A NOVEL QUESTION OF DIVORCE LAW.
HAS rHK PERSON ALLEGED TO BE IMPLICATED WITH
THE DEFENDANT RIGHT 70 PRESENT DE-
PENCE As A PARTY TO THE AcTIoNf
A new point in divorce law-namciy,
whether the person named IN the complaint az the
person with whom the defendant committed the acts
Of nndeity can intervene party TO the suis IN
order to prove his her innocence OF The cbarge-was
passed upon by Term Of the Supreme Court
in one ~ the opinions handed down ycsierdIy Tae
paintlf IN the action, Harriet Clay, sues for a di
vorce her husband, Henry de Il. Clay, charging
him with acts OF improper intimacy with MISS Isabella
ID. Lyon o. Randars Island, IN November. 1879. The
charcs were supported by Thomas Murphy aud Patrick
Grace The defendant, before the papers could be
served upon HIM. took his children and went with
them 10 Virginia Miss Lyon appealed % the Supreme
Court before Justice DonOhue, be allowed TO inter
vene defend the acton. as'ertng her innocence OF
the charge In her all ayit she said that on NO
venber 81. 1870. which was the anniversary or her
mothers birthday she went from her home at RandaPs
Island with defendant Colonel Clay, IN rowDoat 70
meet some cousins who coming TO visit her. They
did not come, and she returned with Colonel
Clay and directly 10 her home.
Miss Lyon further said that Colonel Clay had
testified during progress OF investigation into tue
truth Of certain charges regard to the management
House OF Refuge RandalPs leland that Grace and
Murphy men Of incorporate habits and that SUBJ
get square with him.
On the argument It conteuded for Miss Lyon
that person with offence, and especially
a woman should have every opportunity to show her
innocence and that Court Of Equity would always
protect such right The answer was tbat such an
Intervention without prec6 dent and had no stat
approval further that when the proposition 70
authOriZ. such an intery ntiOn proposed as an
amendment TO tho Code in the last Legislature II was
voted down. Justice DonObue denied the notion mold
ing that the Court had no power 70 grant IT,
IL deciding upon the question raised, the General
Term its opinion sand: The utmost That the Court
could DO In such THIS would be to hear the
communications OF the alleged paramOur as GDticuS
curi and thereupOn to redOube It's watchlu ness WI
a view TO guarding her honor, and the Court mignt di-
Jury Tia and permit the woman TO TESTIFY therein,
and summon any Witnesses might designate. 1nd
subject the plaintiffs witnesses TO crefm scrutiny ana
examna ion. Tue Court mas always the power In
theory to the whole truth But tue woman
become party toe proceeding, nor directly
intervene therein party. Our jurisdiction
matters o. divorce s purely duorY. ana there -
express provision OF law for SUCH contingency as
the r The petition lar IA 10 PRAYED FOR leave
30 ana answer and defend upon the merts'was
properly d-n ell for want OF power.
The Court viii, however lOOk 80 II mat the testimony
is clear and convincing bcf0re granting tie plantr re-
lief winch necessarily ref ,ct upon aud, pro dnto
convict petitioner IL order Ia the rghts or the
petitioner t. be convicted unhcard may be secured,
consistent with the law IN such cases, the
order the Court below should be modified Dr denying
prayer OF the petitioner come IN aud a. iend the
action party. directing that notice be given TO
the petitioner all proceed ngs 10 take
test mouy ~ the action, tnat she lee allowed 10 he pres
cut ana the witnesses produced ana that
she caled and witness, and be permitted 20
give her testimony and that such witnesses IS she
name be summoned and eX IN ned ard As so IOdined
afi med without James Perry lOT the appel
liant; W. 3. Horn blower Tor The plainllh