New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-03-30
PART II.
PAGES II TO "A.
THE STORY TOLD IN COURT.
,,ps n,pv SMITHS SUIT FOR ALIENA-
TIoN OF HER HUSBANDS AFFECTIONS
~ r,c,.prs IN An ACTION BROUGHT BY HER
AGAINST MRS. CATHERINE a. bHApiiO "'1
AND OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES AND


AGAINST MRS. CATHERINE A. BRADHURsT
AID CONGRATULATIONS AND
POETRY IN EVIDENCE.
,,,, hog,,n Yesterday before Justice Davy in the
cociol Tern, of the Supreme Court is on its lace
a sn,, simply to compel the defendants, Charles T.
pradburst his wife, and Charles A. Jackson, to per-
form a specific contract which they entered INTO
viii the plaintiff Mary Edna Smith. but behind 1t
there is story that created sensation some years
AGO when despite the efforts Of counsel on both
sides IL became pubic The same efforts for secrecy
were shown in this last trial, but step by step in
the examination of the witnesses the story was I'M
folded
The story on which 1t is based Is as follows: In
April. 1891 Mary Edna Smith brought suit against
Mrs Catherine 4 RradhurSt for 100000 for the
alienation Of her husbands affections. William v
Smith her husband. was then we.-kno"n eng-
neer in one Of the city departments. He was heard
OF in Europe time ago, and since then ali
trace of him has been lost. EN-Judge Fullerton.
Mr. OIeary and the defendant Mr.. Jackson were
the attorneys in the suit for Mrs. Bradhurst ana
ex-Judge Birdseye and his son. Clarence F. BIRDS
eve for Mrs Smith. The attorneys are the same in
the present suit. The reasop for the secrecy at
tempted was 4 disposition II is said. on the part Oh
Mrs Bradhurs, TO settle the matter. Mrs Smlth
said she had some letters directed to her huspdh"
in the handwriting of Mrs. Bradhurst. and a.so
book OF poetry. inscribed by Mrs. BrduA"s' 10
Mr. Smith, in which many tender passages were
underlined Mrs Bradhurst. 1t is alleged dehled me
authenticity of these letters. but Al the same time
was willing 10 purchase her peace. as her lawyer
puts IT,
Thereupon is said, Judge Fullerton and MI
Birdseye agreed that Mrs. Bradhurst was 10 give
Mrs Smith $500 in cash and the $500 note or mort
gage that is now sued for. Mrs. Smith was to sur
render all the alleged discriminating evidence TO her
lawyer and on a day be set all the lawyers were
TO meet in the office Judge Fullerton and all the
letters. books and papers in the case to be burned
An order obtained from Justice Andrews al
lowing the plaintiff 10 withdraw all the papers on
file in the court, and an order of discontinuance
was entered.
About this time d newspaper got wind of the
matter and published all the story obtanable. So
careful the attorneys to keep it secret that
they entered into a stipulation to deny that there
tiers were in existence This stipulation and the
alleged agreement to pay the none! Tor the eni-
also about forty letters which had passed between
the contracting attorneys, in when the case was
always referred to that matter.
Finally on February 10 1882, the lawyers met IN
in the crate to which it was expected would Short
~ be consigned all the letters and the book Mr.
fas6 Sere ea rda ihe ar ar S aRd P l @ be-
turned over. but here came the hitch MI Jackson
said he would rot agree to turn !; over 10 Mrs,
February 10, 1895. Mr.. Eirdseye said that he would
hear OF no other way, and the negotiations came
10 an abrup; termination.
Mr. O'Leary is alleged 10 have Jumped up ana
said, Mrs Smith will never get a id cent
and as Mr.. Birdseye started TO leave the office 10
have made grab for the bag, though h. did not
get it. The next day Mrs Smith filed len on ne
property of the Bradhursts. ana the next Step was
the suit 20 compel them 70 give her the Slo"o
This is the II came out yesterday, when
Clarence F Birdseye examined by ms father,
ex-Judge Birdseye. for the plaintiff Judge B!rtseyc
also exhibited large bundle that he'd the alleged
poetry. The witnesses cross-eXa ninaton was hardly
got under way when Justice Davy announced the
Close of court on account OF his to KOChesie
to-day The case therefore postponed until
June g.