Supreme Court

City & County of New York

Cora L. V. Hatch

agst

Benjamin F. Hatch

The complaint of Cora L. V. Hatch the plaintiff against Benjamin F. Hatch, the defendant shows to this honorable court.

1. First: For a first cause of action: That on or about the seventh day of August in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six at Attica in the State of New York this plaintiff was married to the defendant.

2. That ever since said marriage both the plaintiff and the defendant have been and still are actual residents of the State of New York.

3. That during their marriage life the defendant has treated this plaintiff in a cruel and inhuman manner as hereafter set forth: to wit --

4. That before their marriage and sometime in the month of July 1856, the defendant made to this plaintiff the following representations viz; -- That he had during the space of two or three years then just past been a practicing physician in the city of New York, and that he could command a large business as a practicing physician in said city, that his practice would be worth ten thousand dollars a year: That his social position was good and that when married he could supply his wife with all the comforts and advantages and refinements which would be expected to be enjoyed by, and which would naturally belong to the wife of a physician of good standing [in?] the society in which she would be [expected?] to move. These representations the plaintiff alleges were wholly false and she believes that the defendant knew they were so, at the time he made them for the express purpose of deceiving her.

5. The plaintiff further alleges that notwithstanding these representations made by the defendant that since their marriage the defendant has not done any practice as a physician in the City of New York or elsewhere nor has he made any effort whatever to get into practice, that he has never made any efforts to get into business of any kind in the City of New York or elsewhere or to earn anything for himself, nor has he earned anything for himself, but has ever since been depending for his support entirely on her labors.

6. That shortly after their marriage and in or about the month of October 1856 this plaintiff by the request and solicitation of the defendant commenced to give and has ever since various and different times been giving public lectures in the cities of New York & Boston and many of the surrounding and principal cities of this and the neighboring states. That the proceeds of those lectures amounted to many thousands of dollars, as the plaintiff believes to at least six or seven thousand. The whole of this money the defendant has confiscated to his own personal uses except the sum of seven hundred dollars as will hereafter more clearly appear, and what may have been expended by the said defendant for their current expenses and mutual support. That the plaintiff consented to give lectures as aforesaid only on this express condition viz: -- that the defendant should provide comfortably for the mother of this plaintiff, and this the defendant positively agreed to do, and it was only upon this condition that the plaintiff consented to give public lectures as aforesaid. Yet the defendant has never paid to or for the mother of this plaintiff more that the sum of ten dollars, and in the meanwhile the said mother was in want of the necessaries of life.

7. That in or about the month of January 1858[,] the precise day thereof this plaintiff does not remember[,] while the plaintiff and the defendant were stopping at the house of a friend in Clinton Avenue[,] Brooklyn[,] the plaintiff requested the defendant to give her some money or procure her some flannel for undergarments, to which the defendant replied, and asked her if she could not make said garments out of an old flannel blanket which defendant then had, which was entirely insufficient for the purpose required, which was too thick and coarse & heavy and not at all fit or in any way adequate to supply the wants of the plaintiff, as the defendant then well knew, and he then and there absolutely refused to grant the plaintiff's request, as above set forth, in any respect, and at the same time defendant knew that this plaintiff was absolutely destitute of said garments and was suffering in consequence thereof and the plaintiff further states, that during the whole time there the plaintiff was engaged in delivering these lectures, and during the whole time of their marriage[,] although he has at times provided for her expensive and showy undergarments as a public sign, he has never provided her with any garments of flannel though often requested so to do, but has left her destitute of suitable undergarments, exposed to the inclemency of the weather so that her health has been constantly in danger & has been sometimes seriously impaired thereby.

8. That he has frequently refused to provide for her riding to and from her lectures and has compelled her to walk in inclement weather and when illy prepared for the exposure. That during the month of March 1858, as also in almost any month in which the plaintiff has given lectures, when she has just been giving a lecture in New York this plaintiff being exhausted by the exercise of lecturing, and from abstinence from food which always preceded said lectures, did make a request to the defendant to procure for her some food more delicate and nourishing than the most common kind, but said defendant refused and utterly neglected to provide it for her and she was then as on numerous other occasions of a similar kind greatly in need of such food and seriously felt the want thereof. Also at sundry other times and under other circumstances the defendant has refused to provide for this plaintiff suitable nourishment.

9. That he has frequently neglected to provide board for her, but has instead accepted invitations to private houses where he has continued to remain until his welcome was worn out and she subjected to the mortifications of knowing that it was so.

10. That he has never given her any spending or pocket-money. Except in one instance his uniform practice being only to provide for actual expenses inquired into and determined before-hand, and not trusting her with any discretion as to money except in the one instance and then the amount was two dollars, and the plaintiff further says that his penuriousness descended to the smallest things, and that he would count over the cloths she had prepared for the laundress and find fault that she sent too many cloths to be washed.

11. And this plaintiff further says that the defendant has never provided her with a home but has left her dependent upon the kindness of others for a temporary residence and that instead of his social position being good as before their marriage he had represented to her, when he came with her to New York which was just after their marriage he had no female acquaintances to whom he could or did introduce her, but he introduced her only to men, and they not fit society for a female. That one of these men, by name of Dr. Fulsom[,] was introduced to the plaintiff by said Dr. Hatch the defendant soon after their marriage while boarding in Bleeker Street[,] New York. The defendant then told this plaintiff that said Fulsom was one of his friends and a very nice fellow. That not long afterwards defendant told her that said Dr. Fulsom had left his wife in New Bedford and was living with another woman in New York, as near as the plaintiff remembers in 27th Street and this he told the plaintiff as a mere piece of information and not as a warning and at the same time expressed to the plaintiff his friendship for said Fulsom. This was about the month of August 1856.

That another of these men to whom the defendant introduced [to] the plaintiff as one of his particular friends was a Dr. Lyons who was introduced by Dr. Hatch at the same time with Dr. Fulsom above named and who was an associate with him. The defendant said to the plaintiff at or about the time of the introduction that he would not trust any woman alone with said Dr. Lyons. Yet at the same time said defendant continued to associate with the said Dr. Lyons, and whenever he had an opportunity brought him into the society of this plaintiff. Said Lyons continued to call on the defendant and called quite frequently for more than a month. That since then and several months ago as this plaintiff is well informed and verily believes, this said Dr. Lyons left the City of New York for parts unknown to escape being linched [sic] by exasperated husbands and fathers.

12. That subsequent to the agreement and to the award of arbitration hereinafter set forth[,] that is[,] after the 25th day of October last past [1858] and the 13th day of November instant[,] while the said plaintiff was living apart from said defendant as by the articles of said agreement and said award of the arbitrators, as will hereafter appear, he had expressly agreed she should do, and while this plaintiff was residing with the family of William A. Ludden in Clinton Avenue[,] City of Brooklyn[,] the defendant came to said house at about the hour of six in the evening bringing with him one policeman and the said Dr. Fulsom abovementioned with the express purpose of gaining possession of the person of this plaintiff and of carrying her away by force. That they entered the said house. That the defendant rushed hastely [sic] into the room where the plaintiff had concealed herself in order to escape him[,] that he then seized her with both hands and was dragging her away by main force at the same time giving her to understand that he had come there expressly to carry her away and that he was determined to accomplish his object. That the plaintiff then called for assistance and was released by said Mr. Ludden in whose house she was. That said Ludden sent immediately for policemen who soon arrived and prevented the defendant from committing any further violence.

That since this time last abovementioned the defendant has accosted the plaintiff in the street when unprotected and has used harsh and severe language to her. That repeatedly at sundry times in various manners by gesticulations and the use of violent and abusive language against her[,] the said plaintiff, he the said defendant has threatened her with personal violence, and has excited just apprehension on the part of the said plaintiff and others that he would suddenly assail her, and commit some great bodily injury upon her and forcibly carry her out of the State of New York, and has followed her against the express will and request of the plaintiff and has then and there assaulted her. That the defendant is a man large in size and of great physical strength and has in his employ and interest some person or persons of depraved and vicious habits who[,] as this plaintiff has every reason to believe and does believe[,] are desirous of, and are planning to seize by force & carry away the person of this plaintiff and inflict some serious injury upon her and thereby he subjects her to a great and constant anxiety as to her personal safety.

13. And plaintiff further says that in divers other ways and at sundry other times not herein set forth the defendant has treated the plaintiff in a cruel and inhuman manner and also has threatened her with personal violence.

14. Second. and for a second and separate cause of action the plaintiff doth allege that the defendant has repeatedly been guilty of such conduct towards this plaintiff since their marriage as renders it unsafe and improper for her to cohabit with him. & for this cause of action the plaintiff doth allege the several matters before alleged in the first, second, third, seventh, eight, ninth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth articles of this complaint, and also.

15. That about three months after their marriage the defendant boasted to this plaintiff of his infidelity to his former wife, and of an illicit intercourse with others, and he gave her to understand that his power and influence over females was such that he could have illicit intercourse with them, saying that "had he access, no married woman could withstand his powers of seduction."

16. That in September 1856 in Bleeker Street[,] after they had been there a month or more and were well acquainted with the members of the family[,] the plaintiff with several ladies chanced one day to be passing a room occupied by a married gentleman, who was at the time sitting in the room with his door open. Said gentleman remarked to them saying, "Don't pass, Ladies. Come in. I'm all alone." On that invitation they (three or four ladies besides the plaintiff) went in the room & remained there in conversation upwards of an hour, but the plaintiff was not there alone with said gentleman and was well acquainted with all present, but when the defendant knew of it[,] he reprimanded her severely and used very severe and abusive language towards her.

17. And plaintiff further says that the defendant has frequently been guilty of onanism,1 and that in her presence, and when asked if that was a legitimate indulgence he evaded answer. He also indulged in coition far too frequently for his wife's health or delicacy.

18. That he has introduced her to the society of a female of bad character & was himself intimate with such female, was guilty of familiarities with her in his wife's presence, caused her[,] the plaintiff[,] to associate with such female as her equal and acquaintance, and kept privately among his things the miniature of that female[,] thus wounding his wife's delicacy and causing her to be suspected of an association with an abandoned female.

19. And that in addition to the matters herein set forth at sundry other times during their said marriage, and divers other ways the defendant has been guilty of other most indecent and immoral deeds and conduct towards this plaintiff such as to render it unsafe and improper for her to cohabit with him.

20. And the plaintiff further states than in consequence of the matters above set forth[,] except as are contained in the twelfth article of this complaint[,] an agreement in writing was entered into by and between this plaintiff and the defendant on the proposal of the defendant, he having himself named the arbitrators and the terms of the arbitration[,] said instrument bearing [the] date the 26th day of August 1858[,] whereby it was agreed by said parties to submit, and by which they did submit, all of their said affairs and differences to the adjudication and final decision of the mutual friends viz -- Dr. A. D. Wilson, James Mapes and John W. Edmonds whom they did mutually chose and select as arbitrators, to arbitrate, award, order, judge and finally determine all manner of differences between the said parties, including also the mode, manner, terms and conditions of the future relations between the said parties and also whether they should in future live together or separate, and in case of a separation, whether the same should be a limited or perpetual separation, and the said parties further agreed that the decision of the said arbitrators in the matters thus submitted to them should be irrevocable and without any right of appeal thereupon by either of said parties. That by said instrument it was further and mutually covenanted and agreed that[,] if the said arbitrators should decide that the said parties should live separate and apart from each other, that said decision should be construed to be and stand as a deed of separation between the said parties as perfectly and entirely as if a formal deed or articles of separation were signed, sealed, executed and delivered by and between the said parties. Also that[,] if said arbitrators should decide that the said parties should live separate and apart from each other[,] that they would forthwith sign, seal, execute and deliver to each other a formal deed or articles of separation in such manner and on such terms as the arbitrators should prepare for that purpose. That this instrument of agreement[,] a copy of which is hereunto annexed[,] was signed, sealed and delivered by both and each of the parties, plaintiff and defendant[,] in the presence of witnesses who also signed said instrument to attest the same.

21. That in accordance with said agreement this plaintiff and the defendant did at various times between the 26th day of August and the 25th day of October 1858 appear before the said arbitrators and did both and each of them submit to the arbitrators their several and respective complaints and differences and their testimony in support thereof, and after a full and proper deliberation, said arbitrators afterwards by an instrument in writing bearing [the] date the 25th day of October 1858[,] a copy of which is hereunto annexed[,]2 did make their report and decision whereby they adjudged and determined that there was good ground and sufficient reason for a separation between the said parties, this plaintiff and the defendant, as man and wife and that they be henceforth separated from bed and board, and that the said parties should severally execute and deliver valid deeds of separation[,] as if the said parties had been by due course of law divorced from bed and board. The said arbitrators did also adjudge & determine that there was then in the hands of the defendant property and assets to the value of three thousand dollars: all of which was the proper earnings of this plaintiff and of right and according to law belongs to her as her separate property -- all of which she however freely relinquished to said defendant except the sum of about seven hundred dollars in the safe keeping of said James J. Mapes, which sum said arbitrators adjudged should be delivered up to her.

22. That when the result of the arbitration was made known to the defendant as it was by due notice of said decision he utterly refused to abide thereby, and he immediately endeavored and is now endeavoring to get possession of the person of this plaintiff by forcible means as has been above set forth.

Wherefore this plaintiff demands judgment for a separation from bed and board forever between this plaintiff and the defendant and that the defendant be obliged to make a suitable provision for the support of this plaintiff, and moreover the plaintiff prays that an injunction order may issue in this behalf to the said Benjamin F. Hatch the defendant that he may be restrained until further order of this court from coming into any house or place where she the said plaintiff may reside or be either in person or by his agents or attorneys & from either directly or indirectly interfering with this plaintiff or her actions and from exercising any force or violence towards her or attempting by force or fraud, against her will to obtain possession of her person, or to control or direct her action, and the plaintiff prays that she may have such further or other preliminary & incidental orders, processes & reliefs or both in the premises as may be just and according to the law & custom of the said State of New York.