Hide Article Text (OCR)
lt;_uester county. judgment atnrmea. *Titus F. Cronise vs. Estella, sometimes called Estellina Cronise, formerly Esteila Dallett and Henry C. Dallett.Titus F. Cronise, the complainant, was introduced to his wife, then Eatella Dailett, several years before they became engaged,and he was engaged for more than a year, with the entire approval of her parents, one of whom requested the Roman Catholic Bishop to perform the marriage ceremony, who declined,only because Mr.Cronise was rot a Roman Catholic. Before his marriage he became embarrassed in business, but his condition was made known to his intended father-in-law, Mr. Henry C. Dallett, who had an interview with his elder brother, Mr. J. I. Cronise, in relation thereto, and complainant then wishing to suspend, these two agreed to advance him money to continue his business. Complainant married Miss Dallett in November, 18(10, her fa ther having a knowledge of his embarrass ment. On December 22,I860, he suspendedpayment, residing at the time in the family of his father-in-law. and continuing to reside there until he left this city,in January, 186L, in order to sail for California. When he left for California, his relations wit a his wife, were most affectionate, and with her father and the family were of the kindest nature. One of bis wife's brothers actually went with him to New York to see him off. These affectionate relations continued for a long time after complainantleft Philadelphia. He corresponded with bis wife, her letters to him being flLled with the most endearing epithets. He sent her money, and entered Into business In San Francisco. What caused the change of feeling towards him does not appear; nothing new in relation to his affairs or conducthas taken place since. The suspicion of complainant’s brother having bsooute hi*cited in some way, before the application to the Legislature, he, the brother, residing in New York, employed Mr. Phillips, of this bar, to watch the dockets of this court, apprehending an application there.Complainant residing in California at the time, was not notified or informed in any way of the intended application to the legislature for a divorce. No time to communicate with him properly was given after the existence of the application was discovered.The first application by memorial was made to the House of Representatives March 21, 1864, and in twenty-three days thereafter, notwithstanding the application of the complainant's brother, through his counsel, for a postponement until complainant could be heard from in California, the bill was a law. The bill was signed by the Governor April 29, 1864. On the 10th of June, 1864, proceedings were commenced in this court to have the act declared unconstitutional and void.The act assigns no cause for divorce.1 he applications to the Legislature for it, avowed fraud on the part of the present complainant, practiced on his wile a lamily, and, consequently, upon her, in reference to bis pecuniary condition, and without which the marriage could not have occurred.
Newspaper Details
Philadelphia Age
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Tue, Jan 29, 1867
Page 2
Full Page
Clipped by
Cindy N.
NA, 17 Sep 2020
Other Publications Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia Inquirer
Philadelphia Jewish Exponent
Philadelphia Times
Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger
Philadelphia Daily Pennsylvanian
