The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-01-17 00:00:00

Ltgal.

COVRT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE, JAN. U.
(Before Sir C. ('itENNWELI..)
ANTIioNT r ANTIIGNY.- JUDGMENT.
This wah a petit by • wife for judicial separation
on the ground of adultery. It was tried before his Lord-
ship on the 19th and 20th .1 December last, and was
reported in the Tlelfa of the 2lht.
Dr. Spinka and Mr. D. Keane appeared fur the peti-
tioner ; Dr. Deane, Q.C., with Dr. Swabey, for the
respondent.
Sir C. Creswell now delivered judgment. He said it
appeared that the parties were married in 11446, and had
three children, born respectively in ISM IS.II, and
18.-.3, and that until lssl they lived happily together.
In that year a young woman, named Liunia Bennett,
went into their service, and disputes arose about her.
It would he very difficult to decide whether the peti-
tioner or her hushand wait in fault in those disputes.
probably both mere, but the decree of the Court would
not be founded on what then took place. Before the
birth of the youngest child the respondent ceased to
occupy the same bedroom with his wife, and slept in an
apartment adjoining that of EMMA Bennett, although
lie well knew that his wife was jealous of Pier. In the
spring of 1853, the petitioner sate, or fancied she saw,
Lunn& Bennett hitting on her husband'h knee. Emma
Bennett denied that she had done so. On another occa-
sion the petit ,r heard a noise in her husband's room,
overhead, at night, went upstairs, and, as she alleged,
SAW IliUl • g out of E Beimetes room. Ile and
Emma Bennett denied that he had over been in her
room, and the Court was not convinced that he had;
but the petitioner certainly had reasonable ground
for suspicion, and lie should have been careful as to the
manner in which he treated Emma Bennett. Dis-
putes afterwards arohe, which led to an act of violence,
which he did not deny. The accounts given of that
act of violence by the different witnesses varied very
much, and an examination of them would show the
spirit of partisanship with which they came into court.
Mrs. Anthony's account was that her husband wished
Emma Bennett to make tea for 1 ; that she said Emma
Bennett should not do it while she was in the house, and
that lie then struck her on the head, broke all the combs
in her hair, bruised her teinplis, and pushed her out of the
room ; that she fell Oil the ioat, and was assisted upstairs
by Bra. Dann, • workwoman who was then employed in
the house. Mrs. Dann to a certain extent confirmed
that account. Emma Bennett gave a different verdon.
She said her minder asked Mrs. Anthony to make tea,
and Mrs. Anthony refused. The husband's account was
that lie asked his wife to isake tea, that she refused, and
thiew hoinething at him. and he took her by the SIIOIII.
tiers, anti put her out of the rOOlll. He said Ito knew
nothing about her combs being broken, but admitted
that he struck her with his open hand. That being the
state of affairs in the house, it was not probable that
harmony would he restored PO long ail Eitt,na Bennett
remained in it, but the respondent refused to discharge
her. In Ittri:i the husband was fur a time absent from
home, and on his return lie complaititsl that wine and
other articles iii, i been taken during him absence. The
petitioner accused the servants of having taken them.
and they atxtuied her of having given them to some of
her relations. The respondent placed more confidence
in the statements of the servants than in thosi of his
wife. All excited state if feeling was Boni produced in
her mind, and in the spring of IS:15 it hail increased to
such an extent that it was necessary to consult a medical
man. lii Angina, MIS, there was another instance of
actual violence. The dispute red about • trifle—
the number if towels lie had used in his his studio—and
when Ale complained that he was trying to make her
out altar before the servants, he threw a jug of wate:
over her, and in the end he struck Pier a violent blow
with his fist, which nearly stunned her. Ile admitt,tl
that he might then have htrnek her on the head, but
added that lie Was So pained at what lie had done Iliat
he never struck her at all afterwards. She said that lie
dill, and, considering the temper lie manifested towards
her in the autumn of 1855, it was not unlikely. His
father then died, and he sent Emma Bennett to buy
mourning for the faittily ; the SAIIIO mourning was bought
for her and for the hervanta, and in the course of a dim
put° upon that subject lie maid to her that he saw no
necessity for her living, lint if she muht live she might go
and prostitute herself. Not one word of that conversa-
tion did he deny. With regard to the ttttt urning, it cer-
tainly was not very satisfactory to a wife to to placed as
actly on • par with her servants. The petitioner said that
early in 1851: lie struck her with a inaubitick, and he
denied it. lit the MAIIIIIII of 1856 lie was absent, and
she was loft with Bennett, and she quitted the house
with two of the children. The mother of the respondent,
and then the resismilent, went to see her, and asked her
to return, but she refuhtsl to don. until Bennett WAS
charged. A coreespindence took plate, in which she
complained of Bennett, among other things, for tamper-
ing with her letters, and he replied that lie never had
upheld Bennett, and never would uphold her, it 1111011.
tiling with her inistresieh letters. But in the witness-box
lie Kahl that Bennett had forwarded a letter of Mrs.
Anthony'. to iiiipt, by his order, because lie did not con-
shier his honour or iii, property safe with MIS. Anthony,
and he wished to obtain evidence as to her conduct. No
one could be surprised, under these circumstances, at the
petitioner's refusal to return home until Bennett WAS
discharged. The evidence completely negatived condo-
nation ; there was nothing to shove that the suit had
been instituted upon any ground different from that
alleged in the petition, and, as the evidence established
that if the petitioner returned home there would he
Ilitnger of a repetition of the acts of violence of which
she complained, and souse of which the respondent ad-
mitted. the Court was bound to grant a decree of judi-
cial separation.

SCOTT C. BCOTT.-JUDGMENT.
This case was tried on the 24th of December last, and
reported in the Tines of the 26th. It was • petition by
a husband for • judicial separation, on the ground of
judicial separation, on the ground of cruelty. Mr. W.
Brandt appeared for the petitioner.
His Lordship said there was no doubt upon the evi-
dence that the respondent was • drunken, profligate
woman, who made her husband miserable, but he could
not fail to see that the real cause of the present applica-
tion was merely a wish to get rid of her, and he must be
cautious in not allowing the Court to be opened to
cases of that description. There was not such evidence
of cruelty on her part as would justify him in
granting a decree, and be must, therefore, dismiss the
petition.

HATWAKD r. HATWARD.-JVDGMENT.
This was • petition of a wife for a restitution of eon- I
jogai rights. It has been before the Court on several
occasions.

Dr. %Vold'love appeared for the petitioner.
His Lordship said the present application was, that
the coats of the wife might be taxed up to a certain
time. %lien the case came on for hearing a negotia-
thm took place, and an arrangement was come to, he
believed with the sanction of both parties, but the peti-
tion was not dismissed. The petitioner afterwards re-
fused to abide by the arrangement, and asked to have
the case heard. He thought she was entitled to have it
heard, but some unfortunate occurrences afterwards
took place, which prevented it being brought before
the Court. It was a very calamitous affair altogether,
but he was bound to deal with it, and he thought lie
ought to allow the wife's cosU to be taxed up to the
time when the case came on for hearing, and the coin-
promise was made. How lie should deal with the costa
incurred since that time was a different question.