The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-05-11 00:00:00

Ltgal.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES, MAT 4.
(Before the Jt3DGE ORDINARY and a Common Jury.)

/OMENS V. TONKIN&
Thie was a stilt for a judicial separation promoted by
Louisa Tomkins against her husband on the ground of
cruelty. The husband denied that he bad been guilty of
the cruelty alleged.
Mr. O'Malley, Mr. Skinner, and Dr. Swabey appeared
for the petitioner ; Mr. Bede/nit Shee, Mr. Russell, and
Dr. Spinks for the respondent.
It appeared from the opeiiing of the learned counsel
and the evidenee of Mrs, Toinkins that she was married
to her husband, who then carried on business as a potato
salesman in Farringdon-niarket, in 1848; that she sees
accustomed to assist him in his business and to keep his
accounts, he being unable to write ; that there were
frequent disputes on the subject of the accounts, and
that he often flew into a passion and beat her when she
made an error. They also had disputes about a woman
by whom the husband had had a child before his mar-
riage, and lie sometimes threatened to bring her to his
house. Several occasions were specified by Mrs. Tom-
king upon which he had struck her, and in January
last she left his louse and went to her mother, with
whom she had since been staying. They had five chil-
dren during the 10 years that they lived together.
Several witnesses, including Mr. Barry, &potato grower,
who had set up Mr. Tninknis in business, corroborated
her evidence, and proved that he was of a very irritable
temper, and accustomed to use very bad language to
every one on the slightest provocation. For the last
few years his health had been bad, and he had retired
from business, and now lived at Bexley-heath
The husband was examined for the defence, and ad-
mitted that he had frequently struck his wife with his
open hand, and once with his fists, but alleged as an ex-
cuse that he was provoked by the mistakes she made in
the accounts, by her neglect of business, and by her
want of proper attention to him during his illness. She
sometimes called him names. _ _ .

The evidence having been summed up by Mr. Serjeant
Shee, and Mr. Skinner having replied,
Sir C. Cresswell then summed up. This, he said, was
the first time that a jury had been called upon to decide
a case of this kind. Hitherto these cases had been pre-
sented to a judge who took home the papers, and was
able deliberately to weigh the evidence, and if upon the
first perusal he felt excited by feelings of indignation
against the person who inflicted the injuries complained
of, he had ample time for elution and consideration be-
fore coining to a decision. ' After a long experience he
was certainly convinced of the advantage of having
Ruestions of fact tried by a jury, but in cases of this par-
ticular nature juries were most especially called upon to
keep down any feelings of irritation which might be ex•
cited by the evidence they had heard. They were not
able to go home and sleep upon the evidence, and it was
hardly in human nature to keep down all feelings of
indignation when they heard of gross, if not cruel, usage
committed by a man towards his wife. There was great
danger of the judgment of the jury being swayed by
their feelings, and he must, therefore, call upon them to
be upon their guard against themselves. His Lordship
then read some extracts from the judgment of Lord
Stowell, us' Evans v. Evans," in which that learned
judge pointed out the mischief that would arise from
enabling man and wife too easily to cut off the yoke they
had taken upon themselves, and the probability that
many persons would become good husbands and goad
wives from the necessity of remaining husbands and
wives. Lord Stowell declined to give • precise defini-
tion of cruelty, but he laid down that it must consist of
danger to life, limb, or health. The question they must
determine was, whether the husband had so treated his
wife, had manifested such a feeling towards her by
actual violence, as to endanger her bodily safety, to im-
pose upon her bodily suffering, or to raise in her mind a
reasonable apprehension of such danger, or to injure her
health. If he had done that, she was entitled to have
the issue raised found for her. His Lordship then went
through the evidence, observing that it was a melan-
choly history from beginning to end. In conclusion, he
said that if they thought the husband's conductamounted
to cruelty in the sense he had pointed out—namely, that
bodily injury was inflicted upon her, or she had reason
to apprehend bodily injury—they would find a verdict in
her favour.

The jury found that the respondent bad been guilty of
the cruelty alleged, and a judicial separation was accord-
ingly decreed.

APPLAUSE IN COURT.

In the course of the case a remark made by the learned
judge elicited some applause from the persons in court,
upon which his Lordship ordered them to be turned
out, and said that if such improper conduct were re-
peated he would order the offender into custody. When
the verdict woo delivered the applause was renewed,
but

Hie Lordship immediately ordered silence to be re-
stored, and said he was determined not to tolerate any
manifestation of feeling in a court of justice over which
he presided. It was not to be endured that manifesta-
tions of that kind should be suffered to influence the
minds of judges and juries. It would be better, if they
could not be prevented, to it with closed doors, and to
have an authorized reporter to publish to the world the
next day what had taken pleas.
--
FULL COURT OF DIVORCE.—This Court, which alone
has jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage contract, was
to open on yesterday (Monday). Lord Campbell was to
preside, the Lord Chancellor being unable to attend.
The Court, to be "full," requires three Judges at least,
but there may be more.