The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-11-14

and Other portions of the record II IL
quite clear that the plalntif was 4
woman o. more tina ordinary intelli-
gence. 1t IL scarcely conceivable that
she believed that unbiased men of ordi-
nary intelligence could accept the state
,nents she made, soms of which. in the
language of the opinion, were contrary
to all experience and to human nature
ITSELF What she and her counsel must
nave relied on was not actual c%reduiity,
hut the disposition of the average
American jury to find in favor of a
wonian In any action Of this kind.
Either efendan or his father was a
man of wealth and IT should he repeated
that the verdict was for $4,000.
III the action of breach of promise
we're not so prevailingly the resort OF
ad~Vehturesses and 50 rarely made use
or by women who are really aggrieved
the fact that occasional abuses arose
would OF curse he no reason to uproot
II. But our judgment comedies with
that OF many writers OF large observa-
tion that the principal office of this
remedy Is to forward schemes for black
mail"
The supreme Court of North Dakota
In Elk parte Sidle. a habeas corpus pro-
Feeding hroucht 10y the parents of a
child to obtain its custody. the court
ruled against the parents. and gave its
reasoning in the following syllabus:
Where habeas corpus is brought by
tue natural parents of an infant fnr its
custody and control and it is shown
that the child has for a period Of al
most eight years been left among
strangers and its paternity and iden-
tity concealed, the polestar and main
nnEl6AFAftn rG ~ .Ir .a,.., .gHt -
best interests Of such child. and where
theee interests point. rs they are held
To point in the cas-" under consideration,
to the continued custody Of the adop-
tive parents the Court will not Interfere
with such control and possession. even
thouch the adoption MAY have been
made without the actual knowledge Of
the natural parents and under the belief
and on the grounds IT their dccease.
I'm determining the question of the
right TO the possession Of an infant as
" Its natural and It's adaptive pa
rents and the real interests Of the child
IN such a matter the relative roverty
or the former does not alone. save In
extreme cases. furnish a sufficient reason
for depriving them Of their offspring"
In affirming a judgment Diminishing a
shA lohkn IN a nuSllfn1
against his wife for cruelty the Supreme
Court of Iowa. In Main vs.. Main. points
out that the game laws of the State pro-
vide no closed season for the trappiug
of husbands. In the case I'm question
the husband was SO. had been twice mar
ried and twice divorced. each time at the
suit of his wife. while the defendant was
AZ. had been twice married and once
widowed and once divorced. The plain
tin had also been sued for breach Of
promise and had sought the graces Of
other women with a forNor not altogether
p%latonic.' Tho opinion ~ the court
says:
Roth knew from the start exactly
what they wanted. She wanted a hus-
band with money-or money with a nus
band. He wanted a wife % adorn his
house aud insure that conluyal felicity
of which fate aud the divorce court had
repeatedly deprived him. With an Ardor
the warmth of which was IA no manner
diminished by the frosts Of aga he
pressed his suit for defendants favor
for a period ~ a year and = hair though
" IL hut fair to say the speed of his
wooinr vas held In check by the pend
encN OF the damage suit above referred
10 which had been brought against him
by another member Of the sex which has
been the bauo OF his strenuous life. lie
visited defendant frequently and had
ample opportunity 10 ascertain her viz
tues, faults ana reculiaritIes-so far at
least n these things are ever visihl. To-
"A sultor before marriage. In short, they
had ample opportunity TO become well
acquainted with each other and form a
fair Judgment whether marriage was
desirable. Cons.acring their worldly en-
p~erience and matrimonial trials. II is not
credible that either believed the other
AZ angel, and IN this respect II is quite
clear that neither was mistaken. Coun-
sci for plaintiff tell rs that defendant
Is an adventures who clulo to Co'flN,
where plaintiff resided. for tho cNprc-s
purpose Of trapping him into = mar
rage IN order that She migrt secure
a portion of his money and that tnslr
subsequent union was thus brought
about with al Interior view to hey uutn.
cha advantage. In support Of this claim
a woman testifyiuE for plaintiff states
that shortly before III" marriage she said
to defendant, 40 woman ~ our ,g.
would marry an old man Of 10 unless
sh" married him for money, and that de-
PENDANT responded, YOU ara dtrued
right they don't. If there wasn't Some
money back OF old John Main ! wouldn't
marry him. and hat - this remark she
added the further information that she
came to Colftx at the suggestion ~
friends who told her she mlaht there
trap "A rich old widuWrr, and that she
did come aud set her trap for plaintiff
and Caught him Waving the im-
probability that a wise traup.r such as
defendan, is said TO h" would he hrag-
ging Of her catch to another woman
before the trap VAS sprune, aud &c
cepting the truth of the story, II ~
very far from afording ground for n