New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-09-14
IHE COURIS.
n,voRCE PAID FOR BUT NOT OBTAINED.
-, oct;on for an absolute divorce was begun

,,voprE PAID FOR BUT NOT OBTAINED.
- oot;on for an absolute divorce was begun
- time ago in the Supreme Court by Robert NJ him-
JUL inst his wife, Frances L. Kimberly. An order
- ,he service Of the summons by publication was maze
~ .,o crouud that the defendant was not within the
. " The complaint alleges that Mr.. and Mrs. Kim
Nv we're married at South Saginaw Mica, on August
80 ,oes They liyei together until 1871, when Mrs.
-.hary deserted her husband and, as Mr.. Kimberly
"a hssn informed and believed, became unfaithfu 10
s,, The complaint also alleged that MI Kimberly was
os,dent of this State and toat Mrs Kimberly lived at
rs., saginaw Mich Justice Donohue, who granted the
- for the service Of the summons by publication,
.s,yed short time ago letter purporting to come
49,. an attorney IN Philadelphia The letter states
,so, the writer had client naRed Kimberly who wanted
A. gas divorce from his wife The client did not seem
70 be put to much trouble to get the divorce and
evidently TO put his wife TO any trouble
At ALL The attorney in Philadelphia undertook Is get
rmbery a divorce. and accepted proposition from an
sorney In NewYork, who SAID that decree oil divorce
essonal Appearance in the action doing anything
except signing the complaint ana paying cert sum
o. by The pIanf and sent back New Kork rhe
Money required also paid Then the New YORK
pn,adelpnla not only did not receive the decree OF
diyorce but could hear nothing about what was doihg
IN the case he ~ naa Inn When 6a been Dad for
teore delivery and he oesOuht Justice Donohue to do
something in the case
vICISSITUDES OF A LUMBER CONTRACT.
The suit of Vanderbilt g. Hopkins, lumber
sslers In this CITY, against Receiver Little OF the Cen
trail Railroad of New-Jersey, came up before VICE
chancellor Van Fleet at Newark yesterday. The nrm
had contracts made with the former Receiver, Judge
Ia,hrop who was relative of Hopkins for the delivery
NJ umber worth about 100000 TO the Central Rail
road When Mr.. Little succeeded Judge Lithrop as
Receiver he refused accept the lumber on the grouhu
.Aa7 1t was not needed by the company aud its delivery
vas not properly authorized The firm then applied 10
the Chancellor OF New.Jersey for order compelling
the Receiver to show why tue contract should
not be carried out The order was not granted upon
the ground that Receiver Lat%rop had no right 10
,ner into such contract without special order OF the
court of Chancery in whose custody the road was IL
was subsequently discovered that such order had been
issued to the Receiver and permission was gwen
10 Vanderbilt Hopkins Receiver Little. SUIT was
frs begun but the issue was transferred 10
the New-Jersey court by petition, replication TO
which came up before the ViceChancellor yesterday.
The claims OF the firm are first $4,000 for lumber sold
drectly 10 Receiver Lttle and second, Tor SlOOuoO
damages losses ana expenses incurred by the ne
eyers refusal TO receive the lumber contracted Tor Dy
Receiver Iathrop The right or trial OF the case Dy
ury was also claimed In his answer Receiver Little
admits the amount due the lumber, but claims an
onset OF about S13.50O for alleged overpayments 10
Vanderbilt & Hopkins by Receiver LathrOpi an1 als9
waved by the firm. The replication nled by the nrn
denies the oyerpayment and insists that no settlement
Nss made lhe question before the Chancellor yesterday
was whether the should be tried before him or
bring another action at law TIC Vice.Chancellor re-
seryed his decision