Burleigh Vs. Burleigh

TSk compliancè with a prëttj geneial desirt to read the defense of John L. tftirlejgb to the bil] for divorce ttled by Virginia W. Burleigh, wc herewith publish its eesentïa] features. It ia a íengthy document and in full would oceupy two columns of space. A refusal topermitits appearance in these coliiiinis last weefc was based upon the Buppoiition wil] out examination tlml the document was of a character tinBuitable to appear in print, mul not from malicieus motives- for we entertain none- as han been infefred. He denies thát "onoraboul théSOth day of September, 1872, the complainani inter-married with this defendpnt at liaylor'a hotel in Jersey City in the state of New Jersey, and that from that day unttl on or about the 21st"day of April, 1880. she and this defendant lived and oohabited na nusband and wife." On the contrary he avera that at the time af oresaid the coraplainant was the wife of Emii Jnslh of New ï'ovk, and at the time aforesaid the complainant was defending a snií of divorce brought agairst her; and that she remained the wife of the said Emil Justli until June, 1873. He admita that nochildxen have been lioin to the p&rties to tliis suit but tha1 snch fact is solely due to her own practices,. and tliat her comluct in this respect has been the prima,] cause of their estrangement. '- . líe denies thst "if therehíi booi o marriage between them It was eonsumniat ■■'(! agalnst the wishes of her iiicn's and relativos." líe denles that "he destroyed Ihe naaFriajre certificáis of a marital oci-emrray alleged to liave been perfomed privately by an anknown clergyman in Jersey City;" and alleges that "in March, 18ra, he was a resident of Cineinnati whence he had gone for the sole purpose of eacaping from the wües of the complainant." ïledenies that " he has been unJcind or cruel to the complainant;" further that "in the winter of 1875 or at any other time came home late at night and ' flew' or by any other mode of transit got into a towering or any other kiinï of a passion and attempted to strangle complainant." He denies that"he ever revilí'd or npbraided the complainant respscting her religión and clmrch." He denies that he ever stnirk the complainant in anger, or th;it in 8ie winter of 1878 or at any other time he used any violence whatever upon the complainant." He denies he ever threatened to kill her, or that he has called her vile ñames or accused her of immorality or uiichastity." He seis forth tliat " said bilí of complainant is a repetítion of certain scan(lalons stories whieh the complainant has circulated in tliis city for the cxpress pnrpose of destroyincc his credit and pecnniary reputation." That he has ahvays been and is now ready and anxious to come to an accounting with her respectingall and every interchange or inter-conímins-Mns; of their funds and property, and that the snit broughtby liim was to ascertain a legal ascertainment, the result of which he allege Bhw a heavy balance against the complaïnant, and that such Was bis oniy object. Pof en dimt oomiy.iw muCB spfift ,, describing how eomplainant enlistad his sympathy and flnally yielded to the ehsrm of lier entreaties and made her misfortunes and sorrows his own, vowing to shelter lier from the pitiless storm of malice, &c. How lie opened his purse-strings aud lavished his funds in her behali'. Tío alleges that his life in Ann Arbor has been one of constant fear and that he lias expended no inconsiderable siims of money to prevent a republication in the western papers of articles appearing in the presa of New York affecöng the character of complainant. He alleges further a separation amLcably and quietly to have been agreed apon. In pursuanee of whicï the complainant arranged to return to New York; that on (he 22d day of April the defendant escorted her to Detroit on herwayand there together attuuled a public entertainment The defendant further states that soon thereafter without canse orprovocation, eomplainant suddenly refcurned from New York and while defendant was absent on business from his residence in Ann Arbor took possession of his house, bolted his own doors sgalnst him and refused Mm peaceable admission to his own house. The defendant further answets and says that he interposes this answer not for the purpose of erecting a barñer to her decree, for no human benig cóuld have a deeper sigh of relief than himself if there might be a speedy diaentanjjlement and dissolution of all lies between him and eomplainant, but the duty he owes to las friends and the public compel him to appear in tlüs defense. And if eomplainant is entitled to redress no one will rejoiee morethau this defendant. The defendant introduces intoWsdefense letters of divers dates in 1878 and 1H79 expressing in endearing terms the happy lives they were living, the content s pfoiiifi to show llioro was nosuch feeling toward defendant as aKeged upon the part of tb.e complai)iant. Charles Francia Adama says: ':I liave no sort of sympaüiy with the Republican party because of that act, and becanse it justilied and sustained it, Afer such an act I have no desire to susiain the Republican party in any way. I would not vote for a party that would carry tbxough such a LÁud. I think Mr. Ilayes was elected by a f rand, and Ido not mean to have it sa.id that at the next election I had forgotten it. I do not say that Mr. Ilayes committed the fraud, bnt it was committed by his party. I have no enmity to Mr. Ilayes, but after tho fraud by wbicb he became President I could not vote for any person put up for President on the Eepublican side who did not disivow the fraud committed. I would not support any member of that party who liad any sort oí' mixture witb that ínu:d. I feel that the eoiinting out is just is much a fraud uow as at the time it vas perpetrated."