New-York tribune., 1880-03-10
THE COURTS.
REDUCING A wIFE's ALIMoNY.
ccEssFUL APPLICATION OF THE LESSEE OF THf
nR NDrEIu HOUSE.


SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF THE LESSEE OF THE
BR NDrETH HOUSE.
Mary T. Kerr in 1868 obtained a divorce
from her husband william J. Kerr, proprietor OF the
Brandreth House, for adultery. \ motion made
before Judge Lawrence the Common Pleas Chambers
Yesterday have the amOnY reduced under peculiar
allegations. Mr. Kerr his petition AYERS that no copy
OF the judgment aud decree ever served upon hl
did he copy until October 1873. BY an anica-
BILE agreement between himself and Mrs Kerr In
1868 he agreed pay her 81 500 year for tho support
OF herself and their three children Mr. Kerr not only
continued to pay this amount until 1878, Dut
he paid large additional OF money for the
support aud education of the children.
He procured at cost 10 himself Of $4,000 two several
appointments for hts son. William J. Rorr jr.' to
cadetshp at West Point. When the souTefused to ac-
cept The appointment spent 900 In paying
his expenses at Lenigh University. The is now
civil engineer and supports himself. The two daughters
also educated at their Gathers expense. One of
them now receives a salary a singer in Philadelphia
church. and the other gives music lessons IN the
same city, Mrs. Kerr, as Mr.. Kerr AYERS has
comfortable fortune OF her own from savings and
bequess OF relatives. The business Of conducting the
Brandreh House has been profitable recently For
all these causes the petitioner asked that the alimony
should be reduced to 81 900 year
Mrs Kerr in answer claims that the statements in Mr
Kerrs petition are grossly exaggerated. and that her
tain herself and children style approaching that due
to their social position. " am not aware" Mrs Kerr
continues OF any change for the In the defend
amt means and business since the Judgment In this case
neither DO believe there has been such consider
able change. am informed and Believe that the de-
PENDANT is Man OF Xrayagant habits, spcndi ng
money ayisbiy unworthy objects and Tor unworthy
mcnt, been living with the woman Kate Ward
as ms wife; that one or two children are
renorttd TO have been horn OF her as the
result of such since such Judgment ana tnat
sl. and Ile SAID child children are supported Dy tue
drcud ans ia q luxurious manner, and That he hls sell
lied uuOn them invested I'm their Dancs argc sums
of money or other property; that the u-endaDt mas
made Qucnt trips TO Europe within lew years ac
compauic by aid Kate Ward, and has there expended
Iir-c money ia tine purchase or eXpenslF PANT
ngs and works Of art and has recently purchased
residence; thar SAID womau Kate Ward, has. Win the
knowe ge assent OF the defendant not only claimed
to be his wife, but has represented herself 10 De
me- the mother Of the legitimate children OF
defendant thus assuming my character hd position
WITH "a view OF OOta,niug social recO-nlIOn
Malcolm Campbell. who presentrdMts herr, claimed
that thc Court Appea had hed, III ktnp Hgt Ramp
that u cas-. Of au CtyOrce tne Court had no
Jurisdiction after ertry OF Judgment except to enforce
The Judgment THIS was opposed by Hcury Brace iOr dr
Kerr. Juage LafCmOrc, m Ms ucci Ton gran tlhg tue
motion 90 reduce the Hbmouy SAYS II there had been
no provision for auOny the gina decree, the rule
nld Gown n Kamp agt. kamp. 30 ny ~, woud uuques
onhbly apply. This Application u upon dt cree Where
sliuouv has been allow and Dr. clearly Within tie ru-
iue. OF Forrest agt. Forrest, Abb Pr Rep lo4, ana
cases tlere cited. Motion granted"