New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-03-08
THE COURTS.
WHY MR.. AND MRS. APPLEBY DISAGhEED'
CONTEST OVER NAMING THE CHILDREN - LIE
MoTHER-IS-IAw's INTERFERENCE.

WHY MR. AND MRS. APPLEBY DlSAGhEED.
A CONTEST OVER NAMING THE CHILDREN ihH
MoTHER-IS-IAw's INTERFERENCE.
Mrs. Mary A. Appleby began an action re-
Gently the Supreme Court against her
Applebv 10 obtain O decree Of limited divorce oh the
ground OF cruel and inhuman treatment, ioho"eu ny
abandonment 1t Is alleged In the complaint 'hat tno
Dartles TO the suit became one by operation Oh ID"
1877 In the face the OF many thousand years Oh
experience OF married people, Mr. and Mrs. Appleby went
after their union live with Mrs Appebys parents IN
West Forty-thrdst. They continued to live theFe uhtu
October, 1881 when Mr.. Appleby deserted MS WIG
Since that tIue IL l. charged he has reIused anu neg
lected TO provide for her. The complaint also contains
allegations thai Mr. Appeby used abusive and threaten
ing Suage his wife. The language IN some ius'an
ces was so tire itening that she was frightened
In his answer TO the complaint Mr. Appleby denies
both the allegations abandonment and those OF
improper treatment On the contrary be says nc hlS
ALWAYS treated his wife with due love and consideration
notwithstanding which she had abandoned MIN py re-
fusng to leave her parents to 1--we with him elsewhere
The case came for trial yesterday before Justice Lare
more al Special Term John W, Britton' the aher OF
he plaintiff testified that the evening OF October TO-
1881 Mr. Appeuy who was evidently much excited, came
up to him and said that he had determined 10 leave Dis
wife, and that he desired to make Bomc arrangement III
regard to her future support He also began 10 speak
about second child, which hal not yet been dehnitey
named Mr.. Appeby wanted To name tue boy "ter neI
father bat Mr. Appehy did not propose to haze the boy
uamed after his grandfather any other BnIt0n. Iuo
hoy happened to he hs boy and the naming OF nun was
one OF his constitutional and inalienabe rShts ~
a father The witness said TO Mr. Appl.oy !:
"You have itreate1 my daughter ior TOUR
years and you will regret TINS .{tepp. .
Mr.. AppleDy offered give his wife 500 month Tor
her support certain conditions, or$Io month PRO
vided re was allowed g. keep his position IN DhhK
with which Mr. BrtOn connected. soon aIttI MS
conversation between the witness aud his son-inlaw
the latier let IA never returned g. ME wie. Mr. br
said that since That time he had solely pfoVldeu or
bis daughter. ,,,,,..,
Mr. Appeby. as q witness in his own behalf. admitted
the cuny( rsat0n with MI BritOn but 0cnlcd that nc
had abandon hia VIE o mad, he said offered 10 pro-
vide q home for her Hnd he had subsequently repeated
the But she refused TO leave her Liners houHe
The witness also said hat he trouble between MN nnu
his wife principally due 10 his WHO'S mSther4 VINO
In the habit OF iucrneddlng IN his anars. Nnen
his first child bOru-a Glrl-Nrs. Applety insrtcn
that il should he named after her mother lie dld not
want his daughter to co through life weighted WIN
her grandmOhers name and insisted that she should DE
named after his mother In the contest for nHmeshEo
between the maternal md the patcrna grandmotbers
victory perched anon the banner ~ the former. Inc
witness was disappointed but he submitted 10 the IN
cYiabe NLcn however his wife IN the cour'e OF time
prc.oni ed him vii boy, he determined 10 nave some
thing 10 sAy about the naming of aim Mrs. ApplcDy
said that should be- named after hs grandfather
name OF any Butfon, she declared tngt her son
should bear The other person. In regard To
the in cIfcrcuCe IN hrs family affairs OF the mOthef-n
law the witness said that she had one occasion In
sisted giving his chtd soothing syrup contrary 10 MS
wishes aud A9 doctors orders Justice larfcm0re re-
MIs Applc0y could not "m make III" between them with