New-York tribune., 1894-10-10
THE CASE or LYMAN HROWN.

TO tho Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir. 4 report appeared In your columns of "ct"n"r
rcsrcctlng certain legal proceedings taken hN MIS-
Maude Barnes Brown against Lyman Brown manu-
cac,urer of patsnt medicines in this city Although
none Of the parties interested occupy any puhH'
place still; the publicity given 10 the htlgatioh ana
the malicious nature Of the statements puh4ish'i
concerning tho plaintiff warrant MS IN asking you 10
be good enough publish the following corrections
In the frs, place. when the parties were married
Ardre,, Brown was eighteen years OF age and Mrs.
Rrown twenty years The only domestic inichctl"s
which ensued the desertion of TN" VIE 10y IN"
husband without any apparent or stated reason
The son was sent To Europe by his father Lyman
Brown who deliberately kept his daugnt'r-ln-Idw III
Ignorance of her husbands whereabouts. although
aware of the fact that his son was In Europe ana
although he was paying his sons expenses there
and the desertion in October. 1885 when tho father
personally brought his son To Montreal, without IN
any way notifying the wife of the intended deser-
ton
Mrs Brown came to Montreal. where her husband
was living in July last and after making proper
and legitimate demands upon him for recognition
o.. = wife and for support. both Of which wer"
scornfully treated she instituted criminal proceed
ings under the laws Of Canada. ana after tn" de
fence mad bitterly contested her right TO do 50.
Young Brown was adiudgcd to be "a vagrant. a
loose. idle disor1eriy person who. although hb" 10
support his wife. refused ana neglected to do So.
by Mr. Justice Dugts. Police Magistrate of Montreal
and fined so (or three months imprisonment.
Your report evidently furnished from hostile
source states that he was placed under the guar
dianshp Of John \. Grose" The facts are That he
took an appeal from the decision Of the Magistrate
and pending the appeal was admitted to ball on
his own recognzance and that of Mr. Grose. There
was guardianship about IT, II" remained IN non
trr,l until "A few DAYS since. when he went to New
York the special instance Of hts father. Lyman
Brown ,,
dismissed motion 10 force the ihtHtT 10 pay
Mrs Brown alimony Of $50 week. judge
Dugas had nothing whatever to do with the question
of alimony. The latter proceedings were instituted
i'm the Superior Court for Lower Canada, and are
pending-an application TO examine Lyman Brown
having been granted. and hc having actually been
examined the 9th inst. before Justice TAFT OF the
with the Supreme Court OF the State of New-YOrk:
Judge Dugas did decline to issue warrant for the
criminal arrest OF Lyman Brown, having some nesl-
taton to jurisdiction. put an application TO me
Judge Of court Of cocordiHas urlsdicon ma naWcy
of precisely similar warrant was granted. and
appear on day suitable to the attorneys In the
case. .. ., -
bv Frank j. Dupignac. to the effect that Mr.. Brown
ca me here to look after his invalid son" ana that
SON into marriage" are both imputent faisehoods.
Mr.. Brown. her father-in-law. IN his testimony W. IN
Justice TAFT stated with respect to the plaintiff. as
follows:
,onate relations with your daughter-in-iaw, Mr..
brown? A-So far as ] know
O-And have had no complaint TO make about
her? A-No.
O-She has made your son good wife. so far as
YOU know? A.-As far as know.
O-Has he ever complained TO you about her?
A-No.
O-Do YOU know OF any reason for his desertion
OF her? Al do not know the real reason.
We have no desire to discuss In the newspapers a
case sub iudice but nasmuch a defenceess
woman ought not to be subjected to ANONYMOUS and
scandalous nsnuatlons without those Interested In
her having an opportunity OF denying them, we
venture to request you 70 be good enough to pHSsh
the foregoing. MoIbbON = OAVlOSON
Montreal OCT. y lOk