The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-03-03 00:00:00

4"f
A DIVORCE COURT SENSATION.

inclemencyrA
The room had but one window in it, and the dim
light that struggled through the narrow, funnel-like
yard in which it was situated, fell upon the bed of a
sick child. He was a lad of nine summers, and
well-grown for his years, but now he was
emaciated to the last degree, with dark purple
shadows around his mouth and eyes, which told
their own tale of suffering, perhaps of speedy death..
The bed on which he lay was clean, but everything
about it denoted cheerless, hopeless poverty. The
child slept, and over him leaned a woman, who '-
some faint traces of beauty, but time, suffering; and
hardship had told their tale. upon her attenuated
features, and imparted an air of perturbed wildness
to the expression of her eyes, which seemed to point
to the cell of the lunatic as her final destination.
She had evidently not slept the previous night, and
upon her dress and the thin shawl that was wrapped
around her, were several stains of mud, as if she had
either fallen or been knocked down in the street. By
the first faint gleams of daylight she was examining
the face of the sleeping boy, and a sigh of relief arose
from her her full heart as she murmured—
"Re yet lives! Thank Heaven, he yet lives! If he
had died in the darkness, with no warmth, no light
around him, I think I should have cursed that man=
ay, cursed him, madly as I once loved him."
bother bed accupied the opposb eicksOkupggi,

In the Divorce Court, the sensational cases of Robins
v. Robins, and Robins v. Robins and Cochrane,
occupied the attention of Justice Butt and a special
jury last week. Upon the resumption of the hearing
of these consolidated suits, Mr. Justice Butt, in sum-

ming up, said the case involved the usual amount ce
contradictions on one side and the other, which un-
happily in cases of this nature always occurred. In
other words, they had to deal with a mass of false-
hoods and to determine upon which side the truth lay.
In the first instance, the wife sought a judicial separa-
tion by reason of the cruelty of her husband, who
denied the charge, and in a cross petition he alleged
misconduct on her part with Mr. Cochrane. In an
amended petition Mrs. Robins charged her husband
with misconduct With the governess, Camille Bornier.
Dealing first with the question of cruelty, the
learned judge said that there was a great deal of it,
and it varied in weight and importance. As to the
spitting at Mrs. Robins, if they believed in the truth
of the testimony, that alone would entitle her to a
decree of judicial separation. Having dealt with the
evidence of cruelty at length, the learned judge said
that this was met by a denial on the part of Mr.
Robins, while Camille Bornier, an interested party,
gave evidence to negative the cruelty. As to the
throwing the bronze hare by Mrs. Robins at her
husband, Camille Bornier admitted that this was
done in self-defence, as Mr. Robins had threatened
to injure his wife with a pair of scissors. Bornier
admitted that the house was "a perfect hell,' and
that she prevented Mr. Robins striking his wife with
a poker. She also said lie boxed her own ears, and
if that was so it was surprising that Bernier stopped
in the house. The boxing of her ears was an
unmanly act on the part of Mr. Robins. As to the
charge of drunkenness, it was the common experience
in this court that family quarrels, leading ultimately
acts of violence and very often of a criminal
Lture, were caused by intemperance. Mr. Robins had
,ade a great deal about his having to leave the army,
let was a man who was found drunk at 11 o'clock in
he morning fit' to remain in the British Army ?
iirs. Robins might have been provoking in her
;onduct, but if the jury found on the whole of the
.vidence that there was violence on the part of the
husband, unprovoked and unjustified by the acts of
his wife, then it would be their duty to say that he
had been guilty of cruelty. In regard to the mis-
conduct alleged with Camille Bornier, there were
several acts of familiarity which had been deposed
to, and some of the evidence was of an "awkward
character." It had, however, been met with a
denial on behalf of the accused parties.
There could be no doubt there was a great
deal of intimecy between then:, but it did not follow •
that it was of a guilty character. There was no
doubt whatever that after Mrs. Robins left the house
her husband and Bornier had ample opportunity for
misconduct if they were so minded, ard it must help
the jury in this matter to take into consideration the
conduct of the parties. Coining to the charges against
Mrs. Robins, it principally turned upon the question
of identity. The slight glimpses they had of Mr.
Cochrane showed him to be a man who was in the
habit of driving a number of people about, and he had
now fled the country owing to. the merciful considera-
tion of the magistrate whom he was before on a charge
of attempting to commit suicide. Questions affecting
identity must be treated with great caution. As to
Mrs. Robins's visit to Bristol, it was admitted by Mr.
Inderwick that she was very foolish and ill-advised in
pawning her watch to raise money for Mr. Cochrane,
and she had told a falsehood to her husband in re-
gard to this . matter. But she told the Footes
of the occurrence, while her explanation of keeping
the action 'from him was that she was afraid if
he knew it he would beat her. At half-past twelve
the jury retired to consider their verdict, and at a
few minutes before two they returned into court with
the finding that Mr. Robins had been guilty of,
cruelty, but as to the other issues they were not'
agreed. The learned judge pointed out that this
would involve a re-hearing of the case, and he asked
them to again consult. At ten minutes past two
they again returned into court with the verdict thet
Mrs. Robins had not been guilty of misconduct with
Mr. Cochrane, nor had Mr. Robins with Camille
Hornier. The learned judge accordingly granted
Mrs. Robins a decree of judicial separation, with
costs, and custody of the children. Mr. Robins cross-
petition was dismissed, and a certificate granted for a
- special jury.
bore I

LORD BRAMELD was an eccentric Scotch judge,
with a bad-tempered wife. His butler determined to
Leave because Lady Braxfield was always scolding
him. "Why," exclaimed the old judge," ye've little
to complain o' ye may be thankfu' ye're no' married
to her." '

•
THE RAPIDITY OF MoTrow.—Lord Campbell, in his
Lives of the Chancellors," tells us that when he first
travelled from Edinburgh to London in the mail
coach the time was reduced from 12 to 14 days—
which the journey had previously occupied—to three
aigl-AS and two days, f‘ This new and swift travelling
rorn tho -Bcotch capitA" ho • Oda; W 11,4 WOildeaul,
Ana T w VITOy hdvi'ieti to otop a day or two at
Fe.vvra-1 prisgeagoe Who had kritio through
*hold. itappiag had • died 0 .813.6 r Oty from thl
vdity .of the motiou,'