The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-05-20 00:00:00

ACTION FOR DIVORCE.

In the Court of Probate and Divorce, in London, the cause
of 'Soper v Super —the Queen's Proctor Intervening," has
been heard, and was originally the husband's petition for a
divorce eII the ground of his wife adultery. In reply to the
petition the wife chance the husband with cruelty, deter-
tin% adultery, and neglect. The case wits &Oen on the Bth
June last, when after hearing the eel once the Court deferred
pronouncing a decree nisi, on the ground that although the
wife's adultery had been proveJ, the circumstances respecting
the petitioner's conduct ce-c so suipichoia that they required
lobe investigated by the Queen's Proctor. The latter func-
tionary accordlLgly investigated the matter, and he now
Intervened on the ground of the suppression of rtnitertal facts
by the petitioner, his cruelty band desertion of his wife and
family, and his adultery with various pre stitutes. Tne hus-
band answered, denying these charges, and pleaded that if
he bad been guilty of cruelty the conduct of his wife Justi-
fied It.

Mr. Denman, Q C, and Mr. J K Caller were counsel for
the Claeen's Proctor; and Dr. Splnke. Q.O , and Mr. Searle
for the peltloner.

It appeared that the parties were married on the Ist
of April, 1850, and there are several children the issue
of the marriage. The petitioner is an engiueer, and
after the marriage they resided at Greenwich. and
various other places about London, but their married
life seemed to have been a most disagreeable one. In
1858 the petitioner went to Australia, but returned the
following year. Ile afterwards went to Russia, and
the respondent accompanied him. They remained
there two years, and on returning to England they took
tip their residence at Battersea. While there it was
alleged that the petitioner struck and ill-treated his
wife, that he aas in the habit of staying out all night
and cohabiting with prostitutes and that in Istifi he
deserted his wife and went to prostitutes,
and had never
since cohabited with her or supported her. The wife's
adultery was not denied, but it was alleged that
the husband's misconduct and neglect had contributed
to it. _ .

Mrs. Soper, the respondent, was called in support of
the Queen's Proctor's case, and stared the circumstances
above detailed.

Several other witnesses were called, who corroborated
the respondent in some of the statementi as to the cruelty
perpetrated upon her by her husband, but the evidence
tendered as to the petitioner's adultery failed, inasmuch
as no particulars of the place or time at which the wit-
nesses were to speak of its having been committed
having been given to the petitioner, the learned judge
would not admit it. All the witnesses stated that they
never saw the least symptoms of drink about the re-
spondent.
In reply to the Queen's Proctor's cue the petitioner
himeelf Was called, and denied ever having struck his
wife in his life, except on one occasion in 1857. On
that occasion he had some friends with him, and one
Sun lay he took them to see St. Paul's. On going home
he found his wife sitting by the fire reading. Ile told her
to get dinner as they wire hungry. 11 e told her so re-
peatedly, and at length she got up and struck him on
the side of the head. Having repeated the blow he
struck her over the arm with his open hand, and that
was the only occasion on which he did in. Ile com-
plained that his wale from the time of their marriage
instead of staying at home, and attending to her
duties always went elf to her father's, lie also stated
that his wife on various occasions seized aid pulled his
beard, and threw things at his head, and that
after their return from Russia he found that
his wife had become addicted to drink. Its denied
having stayed out late, or having frequeoted bad
places. On frequent occasions he had been obliged
to call in the police in consequence of his wife's violent
conduct. He finally parted from his wife about June,
1 It 4 Its did so in consequence of hie wife's miscon-
duct, but when h left there was plenty of provisions
in the house, and he hal plenty of many, and he
arranged with his brother to pay her a round a week
during the tithe he WAR away. That was paid her up
to the time abs was found with child by another man.
He had islso since this snit was commenced sent money
through the guardians of the posr for the benefit of his
children.

In support of the p-titioner's statements as to the
violence and outrageous conduct of his wife, several
witnesses were called, one of whom, a brother-in•law
of his, spoke as to one occasion on which the respondent
followed her husband to his house, and threatened to
stab him with a knife. She thou rushed out of the
house, eayiog she would drown herself, and was after-
wards found drunk in the street, and token home in
a cab by her husband. A policeman of the name of
Drew stated that in the early part of 18603, 11-, by order
of his inspector, went with the petitioner, to take the
thinws away fr ins the house. Ho went in crier to
prevent a breach of the peace. When they went there
the respondent took up a p Ater and threasened to split
his head if he took away his things. Witness made
her put down the poker, and she was quiet after that.
Other parties stated 'hat the respondent was a woman
of great irritability of temper, that she was Inattentive

to her-domestic dutiee and that .hey lived a mosi•
-
unhappy life. It was ;deo in evidence that after the
petitioner left fur humeia, In June, IPb4, and up to the
time she was found with child by another man in 1.69,
he paid his wife through the brother a sum of £1.31.
On the conclusion of the evidence, the counsel on
the other aide having a Idreseed the jury,
Lord Penzance esid if ever there WIL4 a case in which
it was necessary to bear both sides, thie WS. the case.
The sulatential question was, which of the parties was
telling the truth, and on that head he had no hesitation
in saying that his predilections lay entirely with the
husband. After going over the circumstances connected
with the C 99.3 he pronounced the decree nisi which had
been euspended until the Queen's Proctor had inquirid
into the came, stating that he would look into the
statute and see when the decree could be made &boo.
lute.

On . oturday Lord Penzance stated that be had
looked into the two statutes regulating the matter, and
he found that he could not make the d.cres, nisi
absolute until the expiry of three month., lie was
sorry that was so, aa be should have been glad to
iiiiv
have in he decree absolute at once, as he thought
the pe ' as entitled to it. The reason why the
decree not pronounced on the trial in June
last was the petitioner being in Russia was not
forthcoming to explain the circumstances under
which he left his wife. As the matter now stood tl,'
decree nisi would be made returnable in three months
for the purpose of being made absolute.