Year: 1871

married


ANOTHER COMPLICATED DIVORCE CASE.


(From the New York Herald.l


The divorce suit in which Maria f. Mooney
is plaintiff and Robert b. Mooney defendant.
came off yesterday in the Court of Common
Pleas, before Judge Charles p. DAILY, on afi.
davits of the parties. The facts as detailed in
the affidavits present this as one OF those sim
gular cases which Of late years, owing to "the
progress of the age" have become so numer
Gus as to occupy the attention of courts and
juries to a considerable extent. Both the
husband and wife, as appears by the papers,
are parties moving in the first society" OF
this city, and lived in style GOT fashion and
splendor up to the time of the separation.


The plaintiff is ladylike and accomplished
looking person, and the mother of thirteen
children, four of whom three boys and girl
are still living with her. The plaintiff now
applied to the Court for amony, on the fol-
lowing statement of facts set forth in her
complaint:-On the 2lst of August, 1854, the
plaintiff was married to the defendant in this
city, and has lived here since with him until
he deserted her year ago this coming Octo.
ber Almost Immediately after their mar.
riage the defendant commenced series of
cruel and inhuman acts towards her and her
children, which continued until he abandon
ed her, using the most obscene and shameful
language in presence of his children.
In January, 1860, the mother of plaintiff
being but two weeks dead, and the plaintiff
having nursing baby two weeks old at her
breast, her husband asked her for some pa
pers relative to her mothers estate, and be-
cause she did not forthwith produce them he
beat her dragged her by the hair along the
floor through the house, nearly killing her,
and causing severe it of sickness, by which
she lost the proper nOnrishment for her baby,
who died soon after.


On another occasion he took two of the
children out in the street at one O'Clock IN the
morning, in their night clothes, lduring a Sc
we're snow storm. In 1862 he dragged his
wife down stairs by the hair. In September,
1854, the house in which they lived took fire,
leaving only the cellar for them to live in, and
for three weeks the plaintiff and her children
were compelled to live in this cellar by the de-
fendant. who would not allow them to go to
the house of his wife's relatives, where they
could find comfortable shelter. The defend
ant then removed them to the first floor of a
house in Twenty-seventh street, the other
floors of which were occupied as a house of
prostitution, and du' ing The time they lived
there he was out five nights consecutivey, and
on his return home he threw dirty water on
the plaintiff.


On Christmas Eve, 1884, he stabbed her in
the shoulder with penknife, bit her in sew
eral parts of the face and tore her clothes. At
another time he threw her on her back upon
the stairs with such violence as TO cause the
premature birth of twins. One evening he
burned her in the face with a lighted cigar.
| After continuing this and other kinds of
| treatment until the 9th of October, 1870, he
wholly deserted her and her children, leaving
| them without any means OF support, and on
| the 11th OF the same month had notice pub
lished in the newspapers forbiddins any one
| 10 trust her on his account. He has never
| since made any provision for her support, ex-


cept to very small extent.


After leaving his wife thus he came ito see
her on two or three occasions, when he re-


newed his brutal treatment. The plaintiff
Threatening legl proceeding, he induced her


to enter into written agreement with him
/ en- the 25th of last March by which she agreed
that they should live separately, she to have
the custody of the four children, and that the
| defendant should allow her one-third of his
/ ii.come TO live upon. The plaintiff says she
has fulfilled her part of this agreement, but


that the defendant has entirely failed to carry


out his part, concealing the actual amount of
| his income that when she married him he
| had no means, but that her mother furnished


him with money to purchase the business of


meat market, from which he now derives a


profit of at least $4,000 a year.


The defendant replies to the charges of his


wife by stating that she was guilty of gross


extravaganza, which caused him much em.


barrassment in his business, she expended


fabulous sums OF money for dress, ornaments


furniture, &c. that any misconduct of his


has been caused by evaporation at her ex-


travagancs, and that she accused him OF


claims, also, to have fulfilled bis agreement


with her, made in March last, and that his


income does not exceed 81 900 year. Judge


DAILY ordered a reference to Murray Hoffman


to ascertain the amount Of the defendants


income, and what would be a reasonable


amount to allow plaintiff for alimony and
| counsel fee