The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-08-15 00:00:00

A CLERICAL DIVORaP SUIT.

In the Probate and DivOrc kil, before Mr,
Justice Butt, on Saturdaythe case of Hillier v. Hillier
was heard. The wife sought a divines by reason of
the cruelty and adultery of her husband, the Rev.
James Gale Hillier, a clergyman of the Church of
England. He answered denying the charges. Mr.
Inderwick, Q.C„ and Mr. Searle appeared for the
petitioner, and Mr. Groom for the respondent. In
opening the case Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., said that the
substantial charge made against the respondent was
that of communicating to his wife a specific disease of
a very serious character. In addition to that it was
stated in the petition that he ussd violent and disgust-
ing language towards his wife. Considering his posi-
tion as a clergyman of the Church of :England, and
for the sake of the children, Mrs. Hillierwas desirous
of keeping these unhappy differences quiet, but sub-
sequently he insisted upon enforcing what he was
pleased to call his "marital rights,' and these pro-
ceedings were instituted. Mrs. Jane Hillier, the
petitioner, said she was married at the parish
church at Newbury, Berks. There were six chil-
dren now living of the marriage. At the time of the
marriage her husband was not in holy orders, being
an undergraduate at Cambridge. He after-yards
took orders and obtained various curacies. During
their married life she had to complain of her hus-
band's violent and bad language towards her. He
bad sworn at her and used foul language. He had
threatened to strike her with a poker, and on one
occasion shook his fists in her face. He generally
kept her in bed till twelve o'clock in the day. lathe
early part of 1878 she found herself suffering from
an illness. She spoke to her husband about it, and
he told her to take a certain medicine. In July, 1880-,
and in the autumn of 1883 she again suffered. In
May, 1883, there was a child born dead. From that
time she had suffered in health. Cross-examined :
Both before and after marriage she suffered from ta
complaint peculiar to women. Her marriage was not
for money. Supposed it was a love-match. Had not
lived very happily with him. Did not consider his
demands at home reasonable. She remembered
taking hold of him by the whiskers. Had threatened
that he would be horsewhipped by her father or
brother. He never struck her. He shook his fists
in her face, but she did not remember doing so to
him. When he bad gone away, she had written to
him to come back, acknowledging that it- was through
her-temper he had left and the irritating speeches she
had made to him. Had written him affectionate
letters when he was away and referred to her being
lonely. She was not an unwilling party to these
proceedings. It was her own wish to be
divorced from him. She had not an allowance
of £lOO a-year from her father. Her husband was
entirely dependent upon occasional duties. Medical
evidence was then given in support of the petitioner's
ease. For the defence the Rev. Jenner-Gale Hillier,
the responden*, was called. He stated that he was
an M.A. of Cambridge. Up to that time he had been
a private tutor, but three years after the marriage he
took holy orders. Some few years prior to this mar-
riage he contracted a specific complaint. He denied
that he had any of the symptoms in 1878, or 1880.
He denied that he had committed adultery since his
marriage, or that he was ever cruel towards his wife.
First of all he was curate at Christ Church, White-
haven. when he went to Portsea, and subsequently,
came to London. Cross-examined: He had not asso-
ciated with other women. Did not know a Mrs.
Herbert. Did not remember Mr. Herbert threaten-
ing to bring him before the Bishop of London on ac-
count of his conduct with Mrs. Herbert. Mr. Justice
Butt: It is a very odd thing that you do not recollect.
You must recollect if such a thing was done, unless
it were a matter of every-day occurrence. (Laughter.)
Witness: I have no knowledge of the occurrence.
Mr. Inderwick. Q.C., then read the letter, dated the
23rd April, 1881, which referred to the respondent's
"vile conduct" with Mrs. Herbert, which Mr. Her-
bert said he would bring before the Bishop of London,
and also submit the matter to the secretary of
his club. (To the witness) : Did you not receive
a letter in those terms? Witness: I may have done.
Did you not take that woman to a house in Bucking-
ham-street, and were you not caught with her by her
husband? I don't recollect the case. (Laughter).
Mr. Justice Butt said that he could not believe a
word of the evidence of the witness. The cross-ex-
amination must go on, but that would not alter his
view. Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., said that he had only one
or two more questions to ask. To witness: How
much did you have to pay Mr. Herbert? Witness:
I never paid him a fraction. Was any money paid on
your account? I cannot Fay. Re-examined: He
denied the adultery with Mrs. Herbert. Dr. Dyte
gave medical testimony to negative the allegations
contained in the petition. Mr. Jus ice Butt, in giving
his decision, said that in regard to the couflict of tes-
timony between the husband and the wife he bad not
the slightest hesitation in saying, as he had previously
done, that he did not believe and ought not believe
a word the respondent had said. The idea of a
clergyman of the Church of England not recollecting
about his being accused of improper conduct with
another man's wife! The idea of forgetting was an
absurdity. He found that the wife had proved her
case, and granted a decree nisi,with costs, with custody
of the children.