The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONIION, THURSDAY EVENING,

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir 3. P. Wilde and a Special Jury.)
HOPLEY V. HOPLEY.-ZIKTRIORDINAItY C&SE.

Mr Kerslake, Q.C., Dr Wambey, and Mr Day were
counsel for the plaintiff, and the respondent defended his
own case in person.
The hearing of this case, which commenced yesterday,
was resumed this morning. It was a suit instituted by the
wife for judicial separation on the ground of her husband's
cruelty, and the respondent, who bad been formerly a
schoolmaster at Eastbourne, Sussex, and was sentenced to
four years' penal servitude for having caused the death of
one of his pupils by chastising him too severely, entered an
appearance, and pleaded denial and condonation.
Mr liaralake, in stating the case, said that the parties
were married in 1855, the petitioner being about 20, and
the respondent 36 years old. respondent had been
educated for an tither, and was a pereon of considerable
mental culture, zeal, and energy. Notwithstanding the
disparity of years he had succeeded in obtaining the
affections of the respondent, and the consent of her
parents to their union, which turned out most unfortunate.
After the marriage they resided at 22, Grand Parade, East-
Lnurne, and there were three children issue of the marriage,
who were living when the respondent opened a school and
had several pupils. The parties went to Paris and other
parts of the continent immediately after the marriage, and
on the day when the ceremony was solemnised, the respon-
dent informed his wife that ho did not intend to cohabit
with her until she had received such training ai his hands
as would qualify her to discharge her duties tro the mother
of her children. Ho said he wished to make her A model
wife. While she was pregnant with her first child he CuM-
menced a series of acts of the greatest violence, which con-
tinued until the period of his imprisonment for causing the
death of the youth Reginald Channell Cancella. During
the term of his confinement in gaol at Lewes, his wife acted
with great kindness to him, and at the time of his libera-
tion, as ho had no home to go to, she allowed him
to take up his residence with her at a cottage
at Wakefield, in the neighbourhood of Eastbourne,
which had been provided for her by her friends, which cir-
cumstance formed the foundation of the alleged condonation.
The learned counsel read a letter from the petitioner to her
mother, in which she spoke in high terms of her husband
during the period of their cohabitation, and said he was in-
structed to state that that letter was dictated by the respon-
dent; he read also a letter which the respondent delivered
to his wife, in which he accused her of not obeying his in-
junctions. He said, that in addition to acts of violence the
respondent was in the habit of using the most opprobrious
epithets, such as calling her "a dunce," saying that she
was beneath the lowest of his servants, and he accused her
of having caused the idiotcy of one of their children by her
mismanagement.

Mrs Fanny Hopley, the petitioner, was examined by Dr
Romley. She said that hor maiden name was Cobb, and
that her father was a gentleman of independent means a ho
resided at Eastbourne. The respondent visited at the house
before the marriage. They went to Folkstone after the
marriage, and his conduct there was harsh. They did not
live together as man and wife until three or four
days after the marriage. While on the continent he
made the statement to her relative to her becoming " a
model wife" before they cohabited. They returned to
Eastbourne in about three weeks, and then by his direction.
She commenced to study rules for her guidance in house.
keeping which he had laid down for her. (These rules were
put in.) These were given at different times. In January,
1556, she was pregnant, and being angry at some mistake
she made in the lessons ho had set her, ho struck her a
violent blow, but she could not say whether he knocked her
down. The next act of violence was in the February fol-

lowing, and she suffered so severely from his ill-treatment
that she was obliged to go to bed and send for a medical
man. On the occasion of the birth of her first child he
would not allow her to have a medical man, and she deli-
vered herself. Five days after the birth of the eldest child,
he compelled her to go out with him in a fly. He took the
child with them, and it was deposited in a hamper. (Laugh-
tar.) He assigned as a reason for making her go out that it
wculd be a change. She had seen him beat the first
child before it could walk, and frequently saw bruises
and marks on its person in consequence. In the year
1557 he had thrown lesson books and copy books at her
and frequently spat in her face. On one occasion when she
swallowed a fish bone he said it was a great blessing for
him she was about to be choked. Ile said he loathed

of Mr Herman, and after being there little more than a
month, during which time ho had led a very diss'pated life
he was found dead in his bed. An inquest was held on the
dead body, and the executors sent in a leaden coffin, and
made the necessary arrangements for the deceased's inter-
ment at a cemetery, but on the deceased's friends going to
Mr Herman's to remove the body Mr Herman refused to
permit them doing so, setting up a claim for more than
£lOO, although the deceased had spent nearly £6OO during
the few weeks he had been staying at the cafe. He (Mr
Pearce) wished to state that there was no excuse for Mr
Herman acting as he was doing, as the executors were
persons of undoubted respectability, and would satisfy
every claim, if just.
Mr Knox asked whether the body was still at the cafe.
Mr Pearce said it was, and that the executors could not
get it away, although the undertaker had gone with the
hearse for it. Had Mr Herman not i.,een present he should
have asked for a warrant against him, so that ho might
show cause why he detained it. IVith rego.rd to the coffin,
that was clearly the property of the executors, and being of
less value than Ll 5 his worship had jurisdiction in the
matter. It was no doubt an offence at common law ip keep
a body above ground, and had the body not been soldex-ed
down a Sufficient nuisance for interference could have been
caused.

Mr Herman said he was told his bill should be settled
before the body was taken away.
Mr Knox said Mr Herman's claim was against the exe-
cutors.

Mr Herman said that he should not be able to get his
money for a long time.
Mr Knox—Suppose I order the coffin t, be given up, and
leave you with the dead body.
Mr Pearce said he could give the names of gentlemen
who would pay any just demands.
Mr Knox said Mr Herman could go to a court of justice
and assert his claim, but as for thinking he could detain a
dead body, that was all nonsense. Mr Herman had evi-
dently been speculating upon that melancholy transaction.
He would tell Mr Herman that the result of the offence
would be that•he would be left with a deady body, and get
n o money at all.
Mr Herman refusing to give up the body,
Mr Knox said he would order an immediate detaining
summons to be made out, and would order—supposing Mr
Pearce's caso made out—that the coffin should be given up,
and then the Board of Health could interfere and make Mr
Herman do something with the body.
Mr Pearce said that surely, if Mr Harman had one spark
of decency left, he would give up the body, and he would
then find no difficulty in the matter.
A summons was ordered to be made out.
Mr Knox told Mr Herman that the summons would
issue, and he might depend upon it that, if he touched
the coffin, with the view of taking out the body so as to
detain it, he would be sent to prison. He considered Mr
Herman's conduct a disgrace to humanity, and he had no
hesitation in saying that his conduct, in supplying the de-
ceased with drink ancrthe means of dissipation, had accele-
rated the unfortunate man's death,
The summons was then ordered to issue forthwith.