Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1890-06-05

sohn II. Rodney, ESD, commissioner
IN the case of James s. MoComb VS..
1asSy e. McOomb, his wife, an action for
divorce, Thursday filed with Prothono-
thry Maxwell decree granting the ap-
i,lication OF the plaintiff. The decree,
besides granting Mr.. McOomb an sbHc-
lato divorce from his wife, gives him the
sxolunive custody OF his three children,
and farther sets forth that the counter
charges of intidelity and various reerimi-
Lations made by the wife were not s1s-
9NneG by the testimony prossnted.
This decision is an immense legal VIC
tpry for MIR. McOomb in one Of the
hardest fought and most sensational
tivcYce suits ever brought to trial in
this State. It brings to the husband q
Iipdicaticn and goes far toward DIS
proving the various sensational and meio'
dramatic Gtoriss, that gained currency
buring the trial, respecting shooting,
tfntql treatment, &c.
But the chief point in this prolonged
contest was as fer possession OF the thee
shildten, tho oldest of whom 10 about 10
years OF age and the youngsyt OF about
seven summers. The mother contanded
holly FOR the little ones, aud the father
brought suit TO show that she wes not the
proper sort OF person to be entrusted
III h the custody and rearing OF children.
10 establish this fact the case wea
Drought upon an application for divorca.
A separation between the man and wife
had been fully agreed upon sone months
previous, but the final disposition of the
children could not be settled, the mother
Insisting upon a part of her little family
l,at A1atRnoHnA In. LaF Mr. MNfinmH
fought this prt p 1sition and brought this
Buit which Com miss oner Rodney decided
Thursday to retain possession of his off
spring
MIR. Rodney's decree Thursday con.
Arms the allegations of the plaintiff that
Mrs. MeOomh had burned the barn on
her husbands Olaymont property, sur
reptitiously took things from his house
and committed divers other similar Of
fences. l. also clearly and distinctly de-
olares that MTs. McComb is guilty OF inf
delity to her husband, fact confessed
by implication in her snswers to th'
formal charges. The establishment oil
this latter point in the case brought thu
divorce aud carried with It the convic
tion that the mother, in this case. is mol
proper person TO be entrusted with the
care OF rearing her children.
The denrea does not make Bny pro
vision nor recommendation for a,imony
this matter being left to the court Il
aettle. This decree of Commissioner
Rodney's will be hal d ID up to tht
superior court in September, when excep
tionH will be filed by the respnndsnrt
eoupst, Il @. Bradford, Esq. This viii
BrubAt y ASK tor rsirial of tue oAat
4 4 - AL 49, ntNu
tom Cf the Delaware courts to confirm
this decree Of commissioners, and unles
some strong Teaeon OF contrary natur
exiatB, this time. honored usage will prob
ably be adhered too.
The hearings in this case have occu
pied nearly 80 days time, during whic
time about l5J witnesses wers examined
and the testimony fills over 1,SU0 type
written pages.
The examination Of witnesses in thi
suit was remarkable in maly ways bu
chiefly by reason OF the fact that some O
the witnesses for the respondent upo
whose testimony II was proposed to 81
tablish the most damaging points agains
the plaintiff confessed TO have pa-jlre
themselves at q preliminary ex6minat!o
In swearing and subscribing to falls
statements. Others fell in the eros
examination, and Commissioner Rodney
decision shows that no reliable oyident
was introduced and sustained by the II
spondent in her charges against her hu
baud.
The case has attractt d much attentio
chiefly through its dIam'tic complies
tons in which it abounded, but the var
Gus charges ,g4 4inst the husband, whic
were fully disprovsd in the commi
Roner's mind, introduced such vi
type of yuigsriiy that the entire top
WAS banned in polite local aocisty and
respectable Newspapers.
Edward G. Bradford, Fsq., represent'
Mrs. MoComb and Levi q. Bird NJ
George II. Bates, 4 qt, the plaintiff.
-