The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1866-12-01 00:00:00

AN UNHAPPY MARRIED LIFE.

In the Court of Divorce the cause of " Milford v.
Milford" barn been heard, and wee a petition by Emma
Boulea Milford for s diesolution of her marriage on the
ground of adultery, coupled with cruelty. The re-
spondent denied the charge of cruelty, but not that of
adultery. Both the petitioner and the respondent
belong to families of good position in Exeter, the re-
spondent being a younger son of a banker in that city.
He married the petitioner in October, 1855, and they
have since lived at Ide, near Exeter, and have had
two children. Mrs. Milford stated that during the
first part of her married life she and Mr. Milford got
on pretty well together, but in 1858 differences arose
between them on account of a lady with whom she
thought he was too intimate, lie became very irregular
in his habits, frequently stayed out late at night,
and sometimes the whole night, and when she re-
monstrated with him he told her that he had been
at his club playing billiards. She also accused
him of having on several occasions sworn at her.
She said that in 1859 or 1860 they were having a
discussion on some subject which she could not recol-
lect, and aa he warn leaving the room he turned round
and thrust out his fist at her; she stepped back and it
touched the front of her deem, and she behaved if she
had not stepped back it would have sent her back. On
another occasion, in February, 1862, she began to talk
to him about a girl in the village with whom he had
formed an improper connexion, which he had prdnined
to give up after her discovery of it. After come en.
vewation he took up a poker and, a.l she statc,i,
flourished it over her head, and threatened to dash her
brains out if she went on talking on the subject. She
was sitting in an easy chair by the fire, and she said,
" it is no use your doing that. yrm had better put the
poker down," and he put it down. She afterwards
wrote a letter of complaint to her family, which he
destroyed. She then wrote another letter, and told
him eke should send it unless he said he was sorry for
what he had done. He said something, which she
accepted as an apology, and she destroyed the letter.
On another occasion they had a difference ebout his
refusal to go with her to an evening party. He said
he would go to Exeter. and she said that if be did she
would go with him. She went upstairs to put on her
boots, and when she had one of them on he threw the
other out of the window. She went into the garden to
pick it up, and he threw a brush out of the window, m
she suggested, at her, and it fell behind her. She put
on her other boot, left the house with him, and
, ttwy walked together part of the way to Exeter. He
then persuaded her to turn back. In 1863 a picture of
a lady, which he had insisted on keeping hung op in
, his dressing-room, notwithstanding her repeated oh'
, jections, was taken down and destroyed by some of the
I
leo sante, and ow, night equarrel arose in consequence
r of her refusing to say what had become of it. She
. .

ntated that inuthe COlll.K.f. 0( th.Taitere-.7.:"wile tl-e;
were in bed, he said, "You make ine no angry that I
will mother you, and he took a pillow in an angry
manner, and put it over her face. She threw it off,
and got out of bed and tried to leave the room, brit he