{"character_count": 9369, "word_count": 1696, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9649999737739563], "ccnet_perplexity": [1793.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
stamped with int. gritty and truhfuiness and in them
Is to be found complete key 10 all the difficult
OF this implicated controvefsy-to wit my sister
Harriet, as usual, gave and took back again The
next charge made against MIR cruger Is, that he
would not submit to his wiies peculisr views and allow
her TO have the lead and dca,ion every thing AS
the mpuiaiion OF mercenary motives, this is two
edged sword that had better he withd may
be as much shown n retaining, as in claiming-in
Withholding all from husband in sharing half wik
his wife. when both the law and her have given
the whole. There is an entire mistake on this subject
and there must be new reading OF all the characters in


the drama Upon fair and candid review of the whole
case will be found that IL is the husband who in the
right and that oil the misch has arisen from the wits
standing and acting upon singular notions which are
incomt tatble with the duties of married woman The
paramount principle of both law and gospel aud which,


fpersisted in always lead 10 the DISASTROUS conse
qnences she has brought upon herself Al one lime she
aoquiesced in the progrsmme OF MIR Bard OF 1856, and
had she continued 10 30 all would have been well
And why did she not let well alone 1t was approved
reasonable What arrang, g,ments is il customary Tor
Chancery 10 mske-whst would your Honor direct
in a case where il Gevolved upon you to settle
wards property on her marriage7 The praGt,cs 81
the Court on such occasians ~ii nu found IN aneiey
W. Skrvng There the Court secured the principal oi
improperly on the wife and her children should she have
any and II not "a the husband II he survived her with the
whole income TO him during the marriage and this Is IN
accordance with the principles recognized by Chancellor
Kent in the oil Braash Gitbes Johnsons chan
Gerry reports 523 in which he declared husband 10 be
entitled IN all respects preference collateral heirs
What special il there for deviang from these prin
cples and this practice in the litigation now before
the Court Z The husband the one hand insists
that he will not touch dollar Of the property unless he
is be independent and uncontrolled in receipt and
disbursement and this in order that his staton aud ac
tons may correspond with scrptural and lsgal frnc


PIES The wife, on the other hand, insists upon having
the control of the whole income, 20 his account
ing for its expenditure and her power of directing or
Withdrawing it at pleasure To settle the dispute, their
friends inters ede, and with voice recommend d


vision Of the income between them Mr. Crnger con-
cedes his claim TO the whole income and acqnssces in
The arrangement She does the same at different times
but finally flies from 1t, and repudiates the deed
carrying 1t into operation. What will The Court,
which Is called upon to de decide between + .sn do them
10 confirm and enforce this arrangement, so rea
sonable md SO sanctioned by all their mutual friends
sproved by the testimony o Mr. Ogden This gentleman
was an old aud valued friend Of the Douglas iauiy know
snd earnestly solicited by Mrs Cruger for his advice


This he gave telling her that all the world were OF the
same opinion end what was her response Convinced o.


mght she be torsaken Of heaven she did not carry


ou,p BY all the world he must have ant all her friends
and acquainances, and Of these there be doubt
but that she had plenty both substantial and phemeTa


real and pretended Does such advice so received con-
der OF nature and the theory OF the law Is not the ve,
first question in case OF the kind" Were her friends
consultsddd they give their advice-was what sh DID
according TO that advice ~ And yet here Is sad what
and the awrgard preventive sgsns coercion,
proof of its existence To the contrary OF ths it will
found that courts have the nteIcesson Of friends


as repeng the idea Of compulsion and ample proec
ton against it. in the cases Of Pswlet vs.. Delava
vesey sr 66s. and vesey, Jr 2sthe case OF strstb
nen his having sustained settlement although ext.
cuted by infant because was fair end oren rsnsac-
tion, and with the consent OF the fsmiy" IL has beei
said too that Mrs. Cruger IL particularly sensitive to
public opinion and that she sced under hc apprehension
OF it. But II the advice Of her friends and public opinion
concur la hs the strongest evidence that what she
did reasonable and right? what sne ought 10 have
DONE end what this court ought 70 .usaini To contra
pglsory control weie exercised over her BY whomi
Ter airly iot by her husband, for ahe wa. Living
apart from and III defiance of his influence and con-
troll But il is said, her own sister. and cousin, end
friend exercised that influence. Was this at Mr.
Crugers instance, by his procurement Tho witnesses
Mr. and Mrs Monroe Mr. Bard, and Mr.. Ogden, inde.
nsntly repe the imputston and Mrs Monroe and Nlr
Ogden who alone took any part IN the makng Of the last
nothing to do with the mak ing Of that deed or OF the on
that Immediately preceded il There two kinds OF in
huence which will vitiate deed will-imposon or
deceit. md dnress or coercion These are generally
mi ed up in the ansocton though they have their dis
'inctve marks and The rules oi law and equity dasI
widely in relation TO them. At law you cannot go be
bind the contract unless there both deceit and fraud ~


the first and imprisonment or hreats Of danger 70


life, limb health, producing physical tear, IN the Sc
cond Equity, however, will pro ect the weaker party


from overpowering moral influence which deprivef
Of free agency Bn ii that party instead Of being the
weaker holds the other at sra length refuses obedience


hough due and acts and moves with perfect independence
where there occasion for The n'eposon Of chan
cery7 Between the inclination and the VIII there wide
diff The inclination mny have been opposed 10 ma
king deed, but If lhe voon free there "a no ground
for Interference There Is instance record oil an In.
strument having been set aside because oi mere mporu


nifty dsinclns,ion less there was superadded weak


ness ofnellect deception or extreme Illness mere mere
nothing Of the kind; the truth h as shown by he evi


deuce that the time Mrs Cruger made these deeds she
not only free agent, but both wished and willed 10
make them Her aterthoughts, and the malignant sug
gesons OF Others 1t that made her recede IRON the
deliberate convictions Of her reason, and the better
Il is seli established that the law isvors settlements
made terminate family disputes, and II reasonable


in their terms and made upon proper odvice, will carry
out their provisions. See Russell 81, and story's
Fqni'y liS ttction 1872 Thus IN the case oil Corey
l.... &l,att ttrpaa md


the enforced his deed as was reasonable ar
rangement and made to settle disputes in family" And
this is consistent with enavg ged views Of society and
due regard for the morals and Of mankind since
such disputes bad example in themselves end pro.
dnce contention and unhapIineis lar beyond hs i,dy-
ever show neither imposition or coercion ana strong
proof Of the other must be made out to induce this
court to rip so reasonable an as me deed
appointing MIR Cruger half only Of the income. II
be pretended that there was any deceit fraud OF


imposition in the making u Mss G1ssa y. as nS ms
formed misled; the transaction was very simple
one, and she was not person to be easily deceived
nor was she likely TO be intimidated or forced INTO
doing what she did choose to do. This Ia certain


from her whole character displayed by her letters and
her conduct and the testimony o. those VINO Know hsf
prove either deception or compusion NOT one lnose
who sttested the execution OF the instrument are william
l. Morris the commissioner who also took her acknow-


edgment of III william Douglas her brother and trustee
and Mrs Eliza q Douglas the wie oil her other bfohet,
and trustee why were none o these examined TO the
fact hicb must have been within their knowledge had
1t existed Other having been forced or duped into making


this deed Again il was executed on the 18th Nov and
after having slert upon IT, then separated from her hus
band; the day appears by the cer'ca'e oil ac
knowledgment, she went before the commissioner aud
declared that hc had executed freely and without any
fssr compuision OF her husband We she bound
and estoppod by this acknowledgment, and cannot
20 from H. Either that solemn avowal was un-
true or her present recantaon bn the latter
not be received in evidence at all as this would be
allow ing deed be revoked by parole On this ground
ID was decided after full consd ration that although du
ress may be proved orally, yet tesator's decarsofs
that he had executed will under coercion s not compe-
tent evidence in the Of Jackson vs. kfifer John
sons Reports 81. How far this acknowledgment j. OF
importance and cor elusive, refer 10 the case o.
10 that Of Grout vs. Townsend, Hill $50, where the
court say married may convey her estate by
deed and when she makes conveyance in the forms pre-
scrihed nv law she in tfectnay concluded as any
other grantor from denying any admitted fsst which
essentsl to the effect and operation Of the deed and to
the case Of Dezell vs. OdelI Hill 229 According
10 the decision in sandford vs.. McClean, 'aig'
i22, tho disability of the we Is removed b,