{"character_count": 1786, "word_count": 303, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9537000060081482], "ccnet_perplexity": [1388.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Before Vice Chancellor MCoun.


July "a Henry ID. Cruger VS.. George Douglas, William
Douglas ct ai-Ths case, which came up for argument
before the Court involves various points Of deep impor
in law both regards the marital rights, powers
and trusts othe husband and the rights duties and prv
leges of the wife II appeared that the plaintiff alter his
marriage executed deed OF settlement conveying the
whole Of his we property both principal and income
to trustees for her separate The principal amount
ing to the enormous sum Of $40O 000-the income to
500 per year In return she gave him. informally
the whole income and he retired from his profession


Chat OF Counsellor Law and both settled 10 Herkmer
county. The wife subsequently revoked the gn but
upon the inercession Of mutual friends executed was
alleged deed securing to her husband one hall o.
the income of the estate, In consequence OF com
planants accepting this deed she has ever since re-
fused to live with the husband, in consequence Of
family misunderstanding. The Bill was filed IN
the first instance to the due performance Of ths
deed and recover the marital rights Of the complainant
subsequently the Bill amended on the advice fceun
sell the ground that the past nuptial settlement wa
epugnnnt to the Revised Statutes and therefore void IN
Law The apportionment Of half the income was II was
alleged previously rspudiaed on the ground that was
obtained through undue possession and coercion The
case likely to OCCUPY the Court for ten twelve days
The peadings being allprinted narge quarto are vol
luminous. A bar of the most eminent lawyers are EN-
ployed on either side For Plaintiff Messrs Wells Van
Waggener, Anthon, and George Wood For Defendant
Messrs Charles O'Conor, Marshall s. Bdwell and B. r.
Butler.