The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-03-11
uxOssEONS HUNT.
The asritai Experience OF u Garfield
Cabinet Minister.
wtsblprton sneolnl no ~ Y world

The emphasis with which the name Of
judge Hunt, of the court of claim, has been
urged by ,ho Tribune and other accredited
organs Of the new administration fora seat
In The cabinet, has provoked inquiry into the
antscedents Of Judge Hunt, about whom
little or nothing seems to be generally
known. The Grat fruits of this inquiry ere
given in the following account of a divorce
suit which occurred in New York in the fall
of 1876. In THUS it appeared that Mr.
William II. Hunt, son of Mr.. benjamin Il.
HuBt, Of South Carolina, and himself "A
prominent and wealthy lawyer of New
Orleans, was married in JANUARY,
1865, 10 Mrs. Sarah B. Harrison, a
breatlful widow and daughter Of tho late
Jacob Barker, the woll-known New Orleans
banker. Mr.. Hunt at tho time was widower
with seven children. In the proceedings he
stated that Oh Tho day after the marriage his
new wife expressed regret at tho stop sho had
taken and told him she had been foolish to
give up her independence. and that q few
days aiL0rWard ShO gave utterance 10 disap-
pointmeut NJ tho establishment 10 which sne
had come, and to her annoyance nc being
burOcned anew with the cares Of housthold
and family, yel she had long known intimately
hiE hpIne, he ayerrDd, and was familiar W.
MS habits. Matters continued t. grnw
worse until in February, 1869 me made a
wrtton request TO him ~ l..s she MIGHT 20 10
Europ', saln@.e: my health and hsp i
ness ng rswlmfo IN imnelia change Of scene"
I' gay hor $1,000 and n letter of credit
authorizing her to draw 500 monthly. She
left for Philadelphia, but n month after
wrote impIorlpg him to allow her 10 return.
She liypd 10 New York during the fummer
and in November went to Europe.
/ In January. 1870, ho wrote to her snnounc.
ing his purpose TO got divorce. She 70 lied,
i begging to be allowed to return, and took the
fret steamer homoward, She came as
lar rs New York end afterwards resided
there. In March u special law as to divorce
WAS pissed by the Louisiana legislature, of
which it WIS charged in the suit that Mr..
Hunt procured the passage, surprising it
provided for his case, and on the tn of
April no pettioned for divorce This law, il
was claimed on the side of Mrs. Hunt, was
repealed the samo month in the general re-
vision of tho code, and, at any rate, did not
authorize a divorce for misconduct antece-
dent to its passage, while /. ID assumed TO do
90 il was retroactive law md void under
the constitution Of Louisiana and the federal
constitution as impaIring the obligation Of
contracts. On juno IL, 1870, Mr.. Hunt, how.
ever, obtained decroo dissolying the mari
ogo, tho court being satisfied y
that the conduct OF the defendant hRd been
such as would. if they continued man and
wife, permanently destroy his happiness, aud
that tho treatment be had received at her
hands, as was established by the testimony,
was OF such nature rs to render his living
with hor insupp nablo
On tho lat OF May, 1871, MIR. Hunt married
again in Now Orleans, and in the following
July this divorced wife, who by tho advice OF
counsel in Now \ ork bad not appeared in tho
New Orleans suit, began an action in New
| York for divorce on tho ground OF his
adultery. The case WAS tried in December.
1878, before Judge Davis, who held the New
Orleans divorces 20 be valid and gave Judgment.
In favor OF MIR. Hunt. Anappoal was finally
held IN The supreme couru before Jalges
Brady, Daniels and Barrett, Judge John X.
Porter arguing the Gaze for Mrs. Hunt, and
Edwin W. St0ush.on for MIR. Hunt. The
question here turned upon whether Mrs
Hunt had boon tcch silly represented in
her absence by the curator sd hoe appointed
for hor under tho law of Louisiana, Iud the
judges agreed that they could not disturb
tho law Of Louisiana in that parish, and that
notwithstanding Mrs. Nuat never appeared
or defended otherwise than by tho curator
nd hoe, euCh action was binding on tho
| New York court This is reported in o
HUNS reports, p d22. On appeal by Mrs.
Hunt to tho court of appeals, the, court ire.
ported in ~ New York reports, p. 2l,)
agreed with the court below on the tochn,.
cal question. Judge Folger pronounced the
the opinion. L. is n curious coincidence
thrt soon anerwsrd Judge Hunt should have
decided, with o,hor judges Of the court Of
claims, against Judge Folgers claim for GA.
ira compensation ns sub treasurer.