The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-13 00:00:00

NORRIS V. NORRIS.

In this case the petitioner, Mrs. Mary Goodwin
Norris, prayed the Court for a judicial separation,
on the ground of her husband's cruelty, to which
the respondent pleaded denial and condonation.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks were counsel
for the petitioner; and Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and
Mr. Pritchard for the respondent.
Dr. Phillimore stated the case. The parties were
in a respectable station of life, the petitioner being
the daughter of a gentleman of fortune named
Pavior, and the respondent being a captain in the
army, and possessed of some property. The mar-
riage took place in July, 1860, £l5O a year having
been previously been settled upon the petitioner by
her parents. The parties cohabited for some months
after which they separated, and had two children,
who are still living.
Mrs. Mary Goodwin Norris, the petitioner, was
examined by Dr. Phillimore.—l had known my
husband about two or three years before our mar-
riage. After the marriage we resided for some days
at Brighton, Folkestone, and Paris, after which we
returned to England and went on a visit to my
father at his residence at Feltham. We all after-
wards returned to Derby Lodge, Sunbury, my
father's country seat. During the year 1860 my
husband was very unkind to me, and used language
which I :never heard before. In Feb., 1861, he
threw me over the bed, and drew a razor across my
throat. He seemed frightened when he saw that
he had made a mark, lest it should be noticed by
my parents, He rubbed the wound with oil for
about a quarter of an hour. I had often been ill
used by him before. My first child Nos born on
March 15, 1861. On one occasion he kicked me
out of bed on the floor. That was about a tneziii
before the child was born, and he ill used me a
week before my confinement. He was angry with
me, and I wished to be friends with him, when he
took me off my feet and dashed me violently on the
floor, and then left the room. He told me things of
medical men, in consequence of which and at his re-
quest, he was present at my confinement. I saw the
medical man only once except in his presence dur-
ing the time I was living with him. After the birth
of the child, in March, 1861, he struck me a violent
blow on the breast, which gave me great pain for
about a week. Sometime afterwards he put a loaded
pistol to my head, and said, "By -- I'll shoot
you," and he looked very much enraged. I looked
at him firmly, and his eyes fell, and he put the pistol
down.. That was in September, and afterwards, I
selieve, I did not cohabit, but occupied a separate
house belonging to my father and mother. Having
deposed to other acts of ill-treatment, she stated that
before their final separation she found the following
letter and verses in her workbox during a time
when they were at variance :
"Mary,--The misery I am now enduring for my past
cruel words to you, I am sure must be beyond the torments
that were indicted on Cain when he was sent into the world
wish a brand on his forehead. You have forgiven me many
times as a husband, cannot you forgive me once as a brother,
and let us meet again on those terms at meals. Mary, I
dread the night coming. lam truly wretched. Things
might be so different. Like the Phenix that rises from its
own ashes again into new life, so you might create me a
new man, Would to God you could only understand what
I feel. lam sure your heart would relent, ana you would
be mine again. " G00llwIz•"
" The treasure I have had I lost;
Oh, could I but regain,
Not for all the wealth the world might cost,
I would so act the same.

My Mary to my arms once more,
Oh, could I have again,.
Then to my God I would implore
For happiness to remain.
Oh, Mary, is your heart BO hard
That it can no more relent,
To the prayer of your penitent bard,
When he says he does repent.
Oh, Mary, cannot you once more
Let me from you win
A word that I do so implore,
It is the word, Good-win."

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Macau-
lay at considerable length, and denied most posi-
tively that she had given her husband any ground
for jealousy, or any provocation whatever for his
ill-treatment. She stated that he had expressed
himself jealous of a Captain Manning, with whom
she had been acquainted previous to her marriage,
and that he was in the habit of asking her most
indelicate questions.
Mr. Edward Kingsford, a surgeon, at Sunbury,
deposed to having attended the petitioner profes-
sionally when she was suffering from the miscon-
duct of her husband.

Mrs. Sarah Cholmondeley Pavior, mother of the
petitioner, stated that the respondent behaved very
badly to her daughter and to the family. Her
daughter was engaged to be married to Captain
Manning when she was only 17 years of age, but
the match was broken off. Previous to the mar-
riage Captain Norris was staying at her house, and
her daughter used to go into his bed-room, although
she entreated her, with tears, not to do so. She
requested Captain Norris to leave the house, and
he said he would not hurt a hair of her daughter's
head, and that he had no impure thought in re-
ference to her. Her daughter never said anything
disparaging cf her husband, and his cruelty to her

was accidentally discovered.
At the conclusion of this witness's evidence, the
Court adjourned. The hearing of the case will be
resumed to-day.