The Express.
London, England, 1865-01-21 00:00:00

ght OVPreisS.

TO CORRIBNIIIDIEFIS.
alvertlasseede Wooded foe "Ilse 'sprees' Thedots &Wig
=mast be at the Mee. Seteeftretreek Tim
if on the der of pebtkothes.

HIE MAJESTY'S.
TEM Emma. FAUST. Masan Swift. Farber, H. Coml. mid
Masehed : mesdames Louisa Ppm Rarriestos. and CoMorelL
Conductor, AM. Ardlti.—And VIZ 'JON AND THE UNICORN.
—llondag PaMormamm We day at I o'clock.

HAYMAZZIT.
THT ERVIN% DAVID GAINICIL—WILD DUNDIMART
MARRIED AND DONE TOIL Masora &Ahern, Bred. Nark.
Mow Garden : Mks BNow4so. —MUMMA eramonsa.
Mr. Comptos.—Aal MILS. WHIM.

PRIWOISWA.
Two. Imam THE WM= EOM AND THE WE MAIDIN
mascots.— ass Tat STAMM 01/ LONDON. Mara. Vistas,
J. W. &ay. O Rabic D. Nusvant 1= B. FOTTNOIR. Sig
H. Minos ; NIL H. Mafflass. sal ewyns.

GRAN
Tan Itriaawa. GRANDIPAIIM WIITTZHILLIS
Emery —THIS ROAD-310Z INN. Marra Fooktar,
Widdionab. Fitspairtek.= layumed ; Mir Ilswerth
—dad IMAIWIACJID Kr. Wildllsomb.

rms MEOW LITTLI DUEY or. as OW IA
od IF of
Tkresdsoodleotrost. sedsomis & lan.. W. Crsoioed, s IL.
lambs : llr. G. &Irmo& Flok.rais Paatoualmloto —AM Till
WORN:OMB OF LONDOW.—Oommosso oi toff-put &

HIGH Wa'El AT LOWDOS-11111DOZ.
TWA DAY Horsing. Di. 4en Aflonsece‘ 81%. MIA
to-itomioW Morning. 812. No Aimoon. AL Ma

LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 21.

Wm's the drama of real life has as interest;
stronger than that of fiction, it can, perhaps,
scarcely be that • large portion of the public
should not watch with interest the domestic stories
which the Divorce Court unfolds. And while the

public does so--constituting itself, in fact, a jury
of appeal that re-tries the case—it is a duty from
which we can scarcely escape to sum up again the
evidence, and to point out the moral rather than
the purely legal significance of the facts. It must
be confessed that the Carrwywo case, which hes

occupied the Divorce Court for many days before
and 'Moe the Christmas vacation, is ugly enough
in its features to need this motive of duty to enforce

its review. Whichever version—the husband's or
wife's—be true, there has undoubtedly been per-

jury on the one side—possibly on both. But
whichever be true, there is undoubtedly a man-
ner of life disclosed which is not merely de-
graded, but ruffianly. Mrs. CHETWYND, the
plaintiff, sued for divorce on the ground of her
hosband's adultery and cruelty. The adultery was
proved by a number of witnesses, and by letters
of Mr. CHarwiNu to one of his paramours, which
left the fact beyond dispute. But under our
divorce law a husband's adultery, though com-
mitted with a dozen women, and these all servants
in his wife's house, is not sufficient to entitle her
to a divorce. It was necessary for her, there-
fore, to prove legal cruelty on his part
besides. This she did by her own evidence, cor-
roborated by that of others. They were m►rried
in 1854, her age being 18 and his 42, and she
swore that for several months after marriage he
behaved well to her, but that he soon began to
use coarse language. The words she deposed to
it is impossible for us here to reprint—it is enough
tq say that not only no gentleman, but no one
deserving the name of man would use them, even
to the moat degraded of women. Mr. CHLTVIYND,
placed in the witness-box, himself admitted that
be had used them to his wife. He drew, indeed,
distinctions, and averred that he had never sworn
at her, but no words could be more brutal than
those which he acknowledged he had ad-
dressed to her. If worse were possible, it
was done by his teaching his infant children to
use these words to their mother—is fact which he

denied, but which was positively asserted by Mrs.
CRETWYND, and confirmed by others. The acts of
corporeal cruelty which she charged him with were
equally unequivocal. She declared that he used to
kick her out of bed, to lock her out of her room
and form her to sleep on the stairs, to make her
clean the grates, show horses for him, sit down at
table with borsedealers and pigdealers, and wait
for him at public•house doors while he was drinking I
within. More specifically she asserted that on
one occasion, when they were engaged to dinner
at Beaudesert, she was late in corning home
to dress after hunting, and be flogged her
with a whip, kicked her down stairs, and
drove her out into the rain; and that
on other occasions he threw plates at her, and
knocked her down. Several times she left his
house and took refuge with her friends ; at last
she finally left him in January, 1863. The acts
of personal cruelty were sworn to by SARAN PRICE,
Mrs. CHETWYND'S maid ; Mrs. Corms, the house-
keeper ; her groom, and other servants ; and some
friends of the family swore to facts which con-
firmed the story.
Such was Mrs. ClirrWrelfi case against her
husband. But the law allowed him to take the
opportunity of this trial to state against her
charges, with the view of resisting divorce, which,