The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1899-08-14
WAS IT LEGAL SERVICE 2
Interesting Phase Of Nc
Guinness Divorce Suit in
Court Today,


| ing. on the argument Of an interlocutary
matter in the divorce case Of Mrs. Mary
Ellen McGuinness against her husband,
| Thomas McGuinness;, a well known resi-
dent of this city, whose home is at clin-
ton avenue
Counsellor Marshall Van Winkle, for
| the wife, who sues on the ground of ex-
treme cruelty, a week ago secured from
| Vice Chancellor Emery an order to show
( cause why Mr. McGuinness shouldn't pay
alimony pending the trial of the suit.
That order was returnable this morning.
and when it came up the situation was
that McGuinness had been properly serv-
ed with the subpoena ad respondendum in
the divorce proceedings, but not on the
application for alimony. This contention
was raised by Counsellor James F. Field
er of the firm of BIinkerhon & Fielder,
who are general counsel to McGuinness.
Mr.. Fielder insisted that the service on
a gardener not in the employ of his client
was no service.
When the Vice Chancellor this morning,
asked the usual question in calling the
case whether there was any appearance.
Mr.. Fielder explained that Mr.. Brinker
hoff was the defendants counsel and he
was out of town. The papers, Mr.. Fielder
said, had only been left at the office and
he was not prepared to say he represent
ed the defendant Mr.. McGuinness, the
lawyer, said, he had not been served in
the alimony proceedings and was about to
describe the mode OF service when the
Vice Chancellor interposed:-
This case has been called once or
twice It's a case where. the defendant
can't be both in court and out. want a
statement Mr. Fielder whether you repre-
sent Mr.. McGuinness?
Mr.. Fielder repeated that Mr.. Brinker-
hoff was the defendant general counsel
and he simply appeared because the
papers were left at the office and in these
proceedings the service was as improper
as in the preceding case.
"Tn hear you as Mr.. McGuinness coun-
sci on the question Of the service Of the
papers in this interlocutary matter. The
Shefifs return on the subpoena is not
contestedl?' asked the Vice Chaneellor'
and Mr.. Fielder assented.
Mr.. Van Wrinkle described the service
Of the papers. He said young man who
made the service found on the grounds
Of Mr.. MeGuinness' home a gardener in
possession, who at first refused to take
the papers. but afterwards took them
Continuing Mr. Van Wrinkle said that al
the time he, went to the house on elm
ton avenue with Mrs. AdcGuinness to get
her wearing apparel they found Mrs
Murphy IN possession Of the house. The
lady is Mc(sufnness sister. The lawyer
then went on to say
when we rang the bell and knocked at
the door there was no response. She was
secreting herself At the time the bell
rang the gardener came out from an out
house and told us that nobody was at
home Finally Mrs Murphy opened
window and talked She said she had
leased the house from Mr. McGuinness.
asked her to let me see the
lease and she produced It. 1t was
undated and leased for one year
the magnificent house and grounds
for the stupendous sum of $50
That fact is SO suspicious that it bears
on the question here. This renting his
home to his sister, where his wife's
clothes still remain, is a palpable and
gross fraud on the part of McGunness
against a destitute woman. She hasn't
enough to buy bread with during the
past few weeks while ne has plenty Of
money,
81 cannot hear that" interrupted the
Vice Chancellor. II am not hero to dis
pense bounty. Donet let us obscure the
point of legality of service
Mr.. Van Wrinkle contended that the SER
vice on the divorce matter was proper
and the defendant was in court and had
not shown that he had removed his resi-
dence to Philadelphia. Consequently, he
argued, McGuinness had a home in Jersey
City and the service of the notice was
correct in spite of a fraudulent lease to
his sister, Mrs. Murphy
Mr.. Fielder submitted on the record Of
the case that the service was improper.
Taking the record as it stands asked
the Vice Chancellor '.and the decision
of the Court holds that the service was
good. are you prepared to stipulate the
place of service?"
mo, sir replied Mr. Fielder.
'sThen you wish to draw the courts
fine. If my decision is favorable to You
you'll accept; If not it won't affect you?''
mo sir" replied Mr. Fielder, Il am go
ing to your Honors jurisdiction in
this matter If your Honor enforces this
order it will be followed by arrest of
Mr.. McGuinness or sequestration of his
property Before the court put the de-
fendant in that position it should be the
duty Of the court to inquire into the
Courts jurisdiction as it appears on the
record.
Mr.. Fielder stated that McGuinness and
his wife went to Philadelphia in March
last and she returned on June 2S. BY the
affidavits the papers were served on Thos.
walter or Brown in one case and on John
Isbam in another Isham was Mrs.
Muruhy,s man and not in the employ Of
the defendant. How could the defendant
he held for service of papers on people
not in his emDloy2
The yice-Chancellor In closing said that
the point at issue was really whether or
NOT the defendant was reached by the mo-
lice. Until the Sheriffss service stood the
defendant was in court Being once III
eo,rrt the question as to the interlocutary
matter depended on whether he had had
actual service.
aTI take the papers,, said the Vice
Chancellor, iii may be that it's case i
where the question OF practice must pc
settled. This is the second case as 70
making an order where defendant has
r1ff been served. An order of reference
viii be necessary to find out how much
money the wife needs pending the trial Of
the cause Tho mere fact that the de-
fsssls, N outfls a large amount of property