JAMES VS. JAMESThe Lecturer on the Holy Land and His Spouse.Termination of the Abandonment Suit—An Action for Divorce Commencedby the Wife.The abandonment suit of Mrs. Sarah E. James against her husband, William E. James, the lecturer on Holy Land Scene*, finally reached - termination before Justice Riley this morning, In the Third District Court, all the parties interested being in attendance, with the witnesses and counsel. The court room was crowded with men and women, who noted the proceedings with considerable interest,Mrs. James, a medium sized, wey formed, rather good looking woman, sat beside her counsel, Mr, H. O. Place, and Mr. James occupied a seat on the opposite aide of the table, beside hie lawyer, Mr. Ray, of NewYork.The defendant and plaintiff in this case are well known in Brooklyn, and a few years ago figured in divorce proceedings in the Supreme Court. It was during the progress of this suit that the personal encounter occurred between E. L. Sanderson and James, an acoount of which appeared in Bowen’s Union, and for which he paid damages to tho lawyer, who brought an action for libel against Bowen’s paper.Mr. James started life in Brooklyn and married Mrs. James here, but they had not lived together long before trouble occurred and they separated. Eventually they made up and removed to Nyack, but here again discord appeared and Mrs, James went off, taking her children with her. He then went west and obtained a divorce in Missouri.Two months ago he made bis appearance In this section of the country again, whither he had ventured in the hope of earning bis bread in a quiet manner, but hia old foes were quickly on the alert, and hia wife hastened to renew her .fight against him. A charge of abandonment was preferred against him before Justice Riley and while he wa* reeling at Crook’s Hotel, preparatory to a lecturing tour, he was arrested.THE CASE IN eOUBT.J a’When the case was called Mr. Place aeked Mr. James to go upon the stand. Justice Riley said that the other side should be heard first to prove their charge of abandonment,and evidently expected defendant’s counsel to object to their client being made to prove the case for plaintiff, but the lawyer, who was bewildered by the , audacity of Mr. Placo’s request sat silent and the Justices, after waiting a moment said that inasmuch as there didn’t seem to be any objection, the defendant might testify. Mr. James was interrogated by Mr. Place, and testified! My name is William E, James; I am the defendant in this case; I reside in Jefferson City, ColeCounty, Missouri; I have resided there for thirteen months; I have not resided in Brooklyn sinew the Spring of 1870; I went from Brooklyn to Nyaek to live on Juno 20,1871, and from fchonee I went to Utica; I lived in the last mentioned place three or four weeks, and from there went on lecturing tours; I lived in the town, of Fulton, Missouri for about a year, and in 1873 traveled in California, engaged in the business of photographing; on the 22d of September this year I came back to New Fork; at present I am doing nothing.Q. When you wore in Missouri, did you take any proceeding in reference to the trouble between your wife and yourself ?Counsel for defendant objected, but«the question was allowed, and witness answered, “ I did take proceedings.Q. Where was that proceeding taken ?Objected to, and objection sustained.THE COMPLAINT WITHDRAWN.Mr. Place then addressed the Court, saying that since the action for abandonment had been instituted, a suit for divorce had been commenced by Mrs. James in the Supreme Court, and os all the minor details of the case would have to be gone over there, ho desired to terminate this particular case by withdrawing the complaint.Justice Riley—The complaint being withdrawn, the defondant, Mr. James, is discharged.The parties then left the court room.