The Sun.
London, England, 1813-05-13 00:00:00

LAW EdlOaT.

ARCUES—COUR ! , ot
• REEVES V. RHEVES.

This was a proceeding for a divorce, at the
stance of Mr, AVilliaM Thomas Pugh Reeves, of
Holborn-bridge, London; against Francesßeeves,
his wife, on the ground of adultery. •
fappeared in evidence, that the husband is the
son of Mr. Reeves, a respectable colour manufac-
turer of Holborn-bridge, and first became ae-
,quitinted with, his wife in the summer of 1808. An
intercourst ensued between them, and they pass-
ed for man and wife under an assumed name, at
various lodgings, until June, 1869, when the
marriage took place. The connection continued
for some time longer, and 1,61 s kept, by the young
mail, a Secret from his friends, on account of his
being a minor, and an apprentiCe to his father,
and therefore unable to provide for his wife,
should, he incur his displeasure : but Mr. Reeves
was at length: intormed of it by an anony-
mous letter. 'This discovery, added to suspicions
he had previously had reason to entertain of his
wife's fidelity, induced Mr. Reeve.s, jun. to leave
his house : a reconciliation, however, wil.;• after-
wards effected between him and his father, tlircmgli
the medium of,a maternal uncle, 'and he returned
to town;--but his suspicions having been confirm-
ed by the, inquiries which his filen& had made,
in the mean time, into his wife's character, which
was found to be little better than that of a corn-
mon prostitute, he yielded to their recommenda-
tions to quit the country, and accordingly' em-
barked for Anitriea, where he has remained ever
since, leaving an authority for the commencement
of the present suit. Various acts of adultery were
then detailed in evidence, as having afterwards ta-
ken place between the wife and a Mr. Dunbar, a
,Lleutenant in one of the London Militia regi-
ments, tit his Chambers, in Lyon's Inn; .upon
which; it was -contended, the husband was fully
entitled to a divorce.

On the part of the wife, the proof of adultery
was not denied; but the defence set up was this,
that hgr innocence was clear up to the time of her
husband's deserting her ; that he did's() at the in-
stigation of his father ; and in concert with him,
by refusing to allow her a maintenance, had en-
deaveitted to drive her into 'the coMmission of
adultery, that he might 1.11,1di himself of it to ob-
tain a divorce. It was likewise stated in the evi-
dence of Mr. Dunbar, the adulterer, and.the wife's
itiothetithat in the course 'of several applications
they bad Made to Mr. Retves, sen. and some con-
fidential friends of his, for a maintenance for his
son's Nvile, they had offeied 'to comply with the
demand, upon condition of being enabled, by her
AU Act of adultery, to obtain a divorce,
and had unequivocally refused contriboting to-
WardS.ber support upon any other terms. This,
however,' was ino,4 positively contradicted by Mr.
Reeves and. his friends, in their evidence, as was
likewisk a 'further suggestion, that they bad en-
deavoured, to entrap the wife into adultery by the
einplayment of persons for that purpiise. It was
cootended, however,' that there was still suilicient
pronfin the alyinitonment and. denial of mainte-
liance 1.6 warrant the inference, that there was a
colluSion between the father and son, to obtain a
divorce; an inference Considerably strengthened
by the circntristahce, that all the acts of adultery
proved were subequeot to the execution of the
document auth!Orising the .suit ; rand therefore, as
the husband' WAS liiinSelf the active partner of his
own' dishonour, and the wife had fallen the vietifn
0f Vice, merely lann.the pressure of want,' occa-
' sinned by desertion, he' was not now-to claim a
ren,caly he could only be totaled, as long
us his oWn, conduct remained hoimpeached. In
support of this argument, the case of Manby'v.
Maltby and Mitchelson v. Mitchelson, Were re-
ferred to, as instances which the husband,
though the wife's . infidelity. Was proved, lost his
diveree upon the.same grounds. -
'To this it was replied, that tbia,abandonment
WAS justifiable,. up on • the ,reasonabli.suppositians
proN,:ed to have been entertained by the husband Of
his wife's guilt ; ' And though he was afterwards
convinced of the fact, and it became of public
notoriety to all who were •acquainted with 'the
parties, yet there might have been wanting that
species of proof. without which it would have,,been
nusafe to have ventured on a suit for a. diVoree. It
was therefore more reasonable to suppose; that
the authority to commence such a suit in this case
wmr, given more with a view to the prospective
proof of the wife's past adultery, than. in antici-.
patios of its commission .being intended to be
forced upon her: The cases cited did not apply
to, the present one, that of Mitebelson being one
in. which there, was a failure of proof of the crime
charged; and in that of Marshy the divorce was
raused, in consequence of the husband 'having
ricl.leeted to commence any proceedings until after
fi‘e years acquiescence of his wife's.living publicly
ivi.l4.f.tate'of adultery. this' case, it was not
peNteoded that the husband was= ehargeable with
mirTentirmeßs.iii elaimiog his right, but that lie
haff,attehiptc.(l tc, auticipate the Means of obtain-
ing tt ; this, however, not being proved, be was
entitled to his divorce.