Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-11-14 00:00:00

BERKSHIRE.

Irr. Ruddketone, who appeared on behalf of Mrs., Emily
articles Cherry,
os said i dt
ht
eh apt
elaacdey
awgaasi
ni
snt cho
eurr th.
uasnd ba
ndde s. ire e
Ml 5,
s. exhibit Cherry
was then called forward and took an oath as to the truth
of the statements in the articles which were read by one
of the masters. They were substantially saa follow .:—She
married the Reverend Henry Curtis Cheafry, of Burghfield
Rectory, in Berkshire, on the 20th of August, 1853, and
from that moment she was a miserrable woman, as he
commenced a system of insult and unkind treatment
towards her. On the 28th of September, 1855, she left
the rectory with his consent, and three weeks afterwards
ho called upon her and expressed. his determination never
to ask her to return. On Sunday, August 31st., 1853, durins,
the evening service, he walked into St. Giles's Church,'
where she was, and disturbed the congregation by his
excited manner, and by staring into her pew. At the end
of the service, and before the congregation had risen from
their knees, lie rushed across the church. seized her by
the arm, and dragged her up the aisle into the vestry, and
add that was nothing to what he meant to do. She then
stated that on the 8-1 of September, 1853, Mr. Cherry:
his gardener, end a policeman entered her residence while
she was at breakfast, violently dragged her into the
pessage, thrust her into a carriage, and conveyed her to
the rectory, where she was kept a close prisoner. She
suffered great pain from the force used, and endured great
mental suffering while thus confined. Having eventually
escaped, she remained concealed for a conside: able time,
but was kept in a constant state of terror and alarm by
reason of a belief that he was searching for her, and that
he had declared he would bring her back at any cost. On
the 8:h of September, 185 G, she was informed and believed
that he had employed a person named Field, a detective
officer, to discover her abode. Subsequently she received
the following letter from her husband :
" For my wife Cherry atone.
" Burghfield Rectory, Sept 6. 1857.
My dearest have reason to know that your
sister not only withholds from you what she knows is now
going on for ycur compulsory removal to me, but that
unless it suits her purpose you do not receive nor see half
the letters I forward to you through her. Oh what an
awful responsibility rests upon her. When will you be no.
longer deceived ? Can you doubt I can lay hold of you any
moment ? Defy me, and, by the living God, I name
where you are and have been the last two days ? What
did I marry you for ? You separate from me. A man
does not thus bind himself to be a woman's fool. What
power have you to help yourself? Want have I not yet
done to prove my love for you? and what will I not yet
do to have yon with me ? Your silly nephew refers to the
the abduction in September last. Why, I will have a
dozen more if nece,sary, and then I shall be perfectly jus-
tified in law. As God is my witness I will have you with
me ere many days. Why not, then, accept the terms I
have proposed through Mrs. Hen'y this day, to you
You are at liberty to tell your silly adviser that I laugh at
her nonsense. For God's sake be wise at last, and meet
me. You shall never repent that you trusted a loving,
generous, it flexible, (and God, not man-fearing) husband.
—Yours, till death, "HENRY C CHERRY."
The articles concluded by a prayer that the court would
forthwith require the Rev. H. C. Cherry to keep the peace
towards the exhibitant. Lord Campbell did not think the
letter threatened any personal violence.—Mr. Huddleshona
said the husband threatened he would have a dozen
abductions, if necessary, an i that he would have his wife
with him ere many days.--Mr. Justice Coleridge did not
see that there was any vioence or cruelty to her person.
He brought her back to his house and she stayed there an
indefinite time. She did not say how long, and she di l not
specify a single instance of violence during she wh le of
that period, when she was entirely in his power.—Mr.
Justice Wightman : What is the personal violence threat-
toned ? - Mr. Huddlestone : The renewal of the abduction.
—Mr. Justice Wightman : There may be an abduction
without personal violence —Lord Campbell-: A husband is
not entitled to use violence in seizing the person of his
wife, for the purpose of making her a prisoner or bringing
her to the marital abode. There is a proper
court to apply to for the restitution of conjugal
rights, but the husband cannot take the law into
his own hands, and deprive his wife of liberty.
A threat to repeat what he has done, I think, would be
enough to warrant the interference of the court. —Mr.
Huddlestone : The lady states in the articles that in con-
sequence of her husband's and the policeman's outrage,
she was unable to dress herself for ten days —Lord Camp-
bell : I am of opinion that he does threaten a repetition of
that, and the wife is entitled to the protection she prays.
Mr. Justice Coleridge thought the articles were of an un-
satisfecto:y nature, because the g eater part of the
statements were on information and belief, and could
not therefore be directly contradicted. It also did not
appear that the husband had used any personal violence,
and he thought it would be going a great way to suppose
that she was in any fear of her life ; but he did not deny
prima facie that a threat to repeat what topic place on her
abduction might justify the wife in seeking the protection
of the law. On the whole he agreed with Lord Campbell
that an attachment should issue.—Mr. Justice Wigh'man
also thought the lady was entitled to the assistance of tte
court. He relied mainly on the pansage in the letter which
threatened in the strongest terms that the husband would
compel her by force to return home.—Attachment issued
accordingly.