The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-06-01 00:00:00

Legal.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES, MAT 25.
(Before the JUDO'S-ORDINARY.)
ROSTOCK V. 11011 TOOK.

This was a suit commenced in the Ecclesiastical Court
for • dlvorcee mimed et tAoro on the ground of cruelty,
and transferred with the written evidence to this Court.
The husband denied the cruelty alleged.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Robertson were counsel for
the petitioner; the Queen's Advocate and Dr.
Q.C., for the husband.
The petitioner, then under 20 years of age, SW
married to the respondent, who was 22 years of age, as
long ago as July, 1827. The wife had no means, and
the husband was in the receipt of an allowance from his
father, and carried on the business of ohymist. At
the death of his father, in 1847, lie came into possession
of £lO,OOO, together with reversionary interests in other
prorerty. The parties eohebited at various please for 29
years, and had 13 children, of whom eight are still living,
the separation having taken place in June, 1886, The
sots of cruelty charged extended over several years, be.
ginning in 1839, and ending at the date of the lepers.
tion. The principal charges were, that in 1839 Mr.
Rostock broke open his wife's bedroom, and held a
pistol to her head; that in 1840 he made use of threats
that his wife and children should not die a natural
death ; that in 1841 he struck his wife a blow on the
head and threatened her with a knife; that in 1842 be
broke open the door of his daughter's bedroom, where
his wife had taken refuge, with a sledge hammer ; and
that on one occasion, in 1845, he repeatedly struck his
stile violently without provocation. There were also
allegations of quarrels about going to the theatre, and
other matters of the seine kind, in the course of which
he had spoken Inc very harsh and unkind manner, The
dates of the next charges were February, April, and
May, 1836. It was alleged that in those months the
respondent frequently threatened to do to Mrs. Rostock
what had been done by a man named Corrigan, who had
recently committed • brutal murder upon his wife. ,
There threat. were repeated in such an alarming loan.
ner that in Jane, 1853, Hrs. Bat ok left the respondent, '
and lied not sines cohabited with him.
The eau of the respondent was that, although he had
been accustomed to speak to his wife with harshness,
lie had not been guilty of cruelty. With regard to the
pistol, he alleged that it was unloaded, that he held It
to his own head, and that he had been provoked by his
wife persisting in reading novels in bed. He admitted
that he had ones boxed his wife's ears in consequence of
her provoking language, and expressed his regret for
having done it. He admitted that he had broken open
his daughter's bedroom, but denied that it was done
with R sledgehammer. He gave an account of the
quarrel in 1848, in the course of whioh, as he stated, she
threw some tumblers and bread, which happened to be
on the table, at him ; he struck her, and she returned
his blows. With respect to the threats of imitating
Corrigan, he stated that the question of Corrigan's guilt
was sometimes discussed among the family, and he had
said to his wife, "If I were to kill you as Corrigan
killed his wife, no jury would and me guilty of murder,"
but he denied that he had ever seriously threatened her.
It appeared that after a quarrel between 1840 and 1850
sfra. Rostock went away, and remained with her mother
for nine months, and was than fetched home by her hue.
band. At a later period, in August, 1853, a public
thanksgiving was put up in church for their reconcile.
ment, and they partook of the sacrament together.
These circumstances were relied on as antounting to a
clear condonation of whatever violence had been coin•
muted prior to their occurrence. It was also contended
that the long intervals between the mite of cruelty
alleged, and the number of years' cohabitation since the
last act of actual violence, proved condonation on the
part of the wife ; and that even if the husband had
made use of noise threatening expressions in reference to
Corrigan's ease, they would not revive sots of violence
committed many years before, and condoned. There
was no proof, it was further argued, that Mrs. Bostook
considered her life or health to be really in danger when
she left the house in 1856.
A number of witneeses, including aix of the children,
were examined and cross-examined on interrogatories in
eupport of the allegations on both sides, and several
letters written at different periods were produced.
Sir C. Cromwell said, thie was a very distressing ease,
and before deciding it he ehould have to examine the
family history of these parties for 28 or 29 years. The
whole subject was one of vast importance, and was
likely to become more so in consequence of the number
of cases of a similar character which had been coin-
mamma during the abort time he had had the honour of
presiding in this court. It was incumbent upon him,
therefore, to consider carefully not only the evidence,
but the doctrines applicable to it, before giving hie
decision.