The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-11 00:00:00

GRIIViSTEAD 77. SHAW.

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE, in reference to this ,case,
(which went off at the sittings before them, from the non-at-
tendance of the special jury,) said, that on the next sitting flay
(Thursday next) some arrangement should be made for bring-
ing it on. By the delay which occurred the other day, the
patties in the cause had been put to upwards of 1,000 guineas
expence, which he wished those who caused it might have to
pay. On this day week the day for the trial would be fixed.

ARCHES COURT, NOVEMBER 10.
HANNAM V. HANNAH.
Dr. LUSRINGTON stated in this case that several exhibits
had been given in support of it, being a suit instituted by Mrs.
Harriet Hannam, of Putney, in Surrey, against her husband,
for a divorce, by reason of cruelty; various acts of which were
shewn in the libel to have been committed.
Dr. ARNOLD objected, on the part of Mr. Hannam, to the
admission of various pleas contained in the libel, on the ground
that they were of an extremely light and frivolous nature.
The libel pleaded that she had brought her husband nearly
4,0001. per year ; to which he submitted that there was a plain
answer, that one thousand pounds of that sum had been settled
on her for pin-money. It was also pleaded that the husband
had endeavoured to get possession of the pin-money, and a
small unsettled estate. That he was in. the constant habit
of behaving harshly, of using language of the worst descrip-
tion, and acting with such violence and cruelty as to endanger
the life of Mrs. H. These pleas, Dr. A. submitted, were not
sufficiently specified to enable the husband to contradict them.
One plea was, that on going into a garden to order some ivy to
be removed, the husband followed and abused the lacy ; an-
other was, that he went, in 1824, the-year after they were mar.
ried, to an estate of hers at Mount Clare to shoot, and that he
would not allow this lady to acompany him; another, that he
forced her to get up in the night to procure some Seidlitz'e
powders, on which occasion she caught an extreme cold. These
were pleas which he (Dr. A.) apprehended could not be seri-
ously maintained as matters of legal cruelty ; and though on
one ofthese occasions the husband had committed one act of
personal violence, it stood alone.
The ninth and following articles pleaded, that he frequently
ordered his wife to fetch things, to dine alone, and that he re-
fused to permit her to have any intercourse with her sister when
in a dangerous illness, thought he subsequently brought her into
the room where her sister had expired, without previously ap-
prising her of the fact, which had been known to him.
The Learned Advocate comniented on other articles of a
similar description, and said he did not think they should Le
gone Into, on account of their frivolous nature, and trusted the
Court would reject the petition altogether.
Dr. PHILLISIORE followed on the same side.
Dr. LUSHINOTON, in reply, admitted that many of the acts
in the libel were, in themselves, of a trifling nature ; but in the
case of Evans v. Evans, Lord Stowell admitted more minute
acts, to prove the habitual conduct with which the husband
conducted himself. It was expressly stated, that on one occa-
sion, after using insulting language, the husband rudely pushed
the lady into a room, and with so much violence, she fell down,
and was obliged to have her arm in a sling for a considerable
time. This was followed up by many minuter acts, which in-
duced this lady to claim the protection of the Court.
Sir J. NicHoLe said he would admit the libel to proof, as
it appeared to him the acts complained of had taken place
within a year after the marriage, in which the lady brought her
husband a handsome fortune, and he committed those acts
with a view to force her to part with a portion of her property
that had been settled on herself. The minute acts shelved the
animus by which the husband was actuated ; and as the situa-
tion of the parties did not make the expence an object, he would
admit them all, with the exception of those parts in which the
marriage settlement was pleaded. But it might he allowed to
lie in the hands of the Register, for the benefit of both parties.
The substance would no doubt be admitted- by the husband.
The libel admitted.