The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-27 00:00:00

HIBBERD v. TAYLOR.

This was said to be an action for the recovery of
damages, in consaquence of the defendant having held
criminal conversation with the wife of the plaintiff.
34r. KNowLussaid that it had been arranged between
his Learned Friend (Sergeant Talfourd) and himself
that a verdict
.should be , taken for 40s. in this case,
subject to "privte terms. '
Verdict accordingly entered for the plaintiff—Damages
405., subject to "private terms."

ARCHES' COURT, Apeil29.
JUDGMENT.—GEILS V. GEILS.
The notoriety given to this case caused rather a fuller
attendance in court than upon ordinary occasions, al-
though it was known only to parties within a certain
circle that judgment was to be given to-day. Sir Her-
bert Jenner Fast commenced at ten o'clock, and did not
conclude his judgment until half-past five.
The Learned JUDGE commenced by directing atten-
tion to the fact that the case was remitted to this Court
by the Bishop of Salisbury. The citation was notserved
publicly on Mrs. Geils, but was last September brought
into this Court under a new form, viz., that of suing for
the restoration of conjugal rights, when it was further
avowed, in allegations brought in and admitted, con-
taining the charges of cruelty, adultery, and other prac-
tices. This case was thus altered—The charge was now
brought by the husband, and 20 witnesses were exa-
mined; it was appealed from, and taken before the Privy
Council; it was then sent back to this Court. On the
allegation and answer of Mr. Geils 12 witnesses were
examined; the case was argued at great length, and
the question was whether all or either of the charges
were established in Mrs. Geil's allegations. The
Court was of opinion that Mrs. Geils had established
her charges, and is entitled to relief from this court. If
only one or two should be established, the Court will be
bound to give relief, and if not, then her husband will be
entitled to conjugal rights. It will be necessary to pro-
ceed without entering into particulars. The law will not
allow separation of man and wife. Adultery, cruelty,
&c., if one of these cannot be established, we must not
then pronounce for a separation. It is not my intention
to say, what I have already said in this case; there is
one subject upon which the Court must make some
observations, it is as to the Examiner of this court,
whether he has not conducted himself as hitherto. It is
impossible for me to speak too highly of the Examiner,
for his duty is one of the first importance. If he exceeds
his duty he is entitled to the censure of the Court;
hitherto the Court has had no reason to complain of
his conduct, and whatever may be the opiaion of
some parties, I have always found him so
correct that I cannot complain. The profession en-
tertains the same high opinion of him. Whether, in
this instance, he has forfeited the character he
had previously obtained is to be seen. We will
now proceed with the cause. It was on the Bth of Oct.,
1838, these parties were married, seven years before this
suit was established. The parties lived together at
various places till September, 1845, during which period
four children were born ; these children are all living at
this period. Mrs. Geils separated herself from ber hus-
band, and has absented herself from her home ever since.
It is not necessary to dwell at great length, but I will
give a brief history of the parties. It appeared at the
time of their marriage Mrs. Geils was about eighteen or
nineteen years of age, the only child of a Mr. and Mrs.
Dickenson. He died when she was but seven years of
age ; he left considerable landed property, said to be
worth 1,8001. a year, the property of Mrs. Geils was
about 3,2001. a year. Mr. Geils was the son of Colonel
Geils, and held a commission as Lieutenant in the
14th Light Dragoons, which was in India. He was
in England on the sick list, and was about 25 years
of age, having an income of about 500/. or 6001. a
year. There was, therefore, a great disparity of their
incomes. The family lived at Dumbarton, in Scot-
land, and the Colonel had an estate of about 1,2001. a
year, to which his son (the party in this case) would be
entitled, but it was encumbered. There had been an
intimacy between these two families for some time,
Colonel Geils addressing Mrs. D. as his " dear and
valued friend." The parties in the suit met in June,
1838, when Mrs. D. was on a visit to Colonel Geils,
whose family was of respectability and some antiquity
in that part of the country. He had four sons and one
daughter ; one son was in the same regiment with his
brother, and a third went out to India, and a fourth was
in the East India College. An attachment grew up at
the time, and Lieutenant Geils and Miss Dickenson were
married in October following, being only three or four
months after their first intimacy. Colonel Geils made
an offer through a letter to Mrs. Dickenson, which was
son's income to 6001. a year. In the course
of
accepted, and preliminary matters were entered into, and
a settlement drawn up, and 1,200/. a year was secured
argumentu much was said of the manner in which
his on
to Mr. Geils, and the rest to her sole use. Col. Geils was
to makeup
them
makaetch was brought about—that it was concerted
no
rht ; but the Court has no reason to be-
lieve
course has been pursued. It appears
an
by the family, to get the property in their possession.
That such an accession of fortune was a subject of im-
portance, doubt
under an engagement to a gentleman in
England, when. le was suggested that this engagement
broken 41 It must also be remembered that
p thato r
should ta
snh ce
be e
the mother was in the same house; if, therefore, she had
any idea of such a view, or had any objection to the
family, sbe would have retired before her daughter's
affections had been engaged. A settlement could not have
been made with the consent of the Court of Chancery,
as she was a ward of that Court; they had also the advice
of an intelligent friend, the old family solicitor, therefore
she was protected, and no censure could be fixed to the
family on bringing the marriage about. In reference to
their property, that it was encumbered, and it was not
till after the marriage with Mies Dickenson that it was
entirely free ; but the Master in Chancery must have
known whether Mr. Geils was entitled to this estate;
the mortgagees were endorsed on the deed, and there-
fore no deception could have been practised. But whe-
ther the father forfeited his promise with reference to
600/. a,year is the question. The son lived upon the
farm, and paid no rent fur some time. It was said the
children would not be made independent of the father in
case of the death of the mother. The agreement was
openly made, and there was no desire to hide or do any-
thing clandestinely. This could not be done without
the Court ofThis is all I think necessary
to say. ay. There
he w Chancery.a
much said in the course of the ar-
gument on the conduct of these parties, with reference
e r
to the property of this young lady, but this has been
answred, and the young lady might have declined the
offer made to her. Under these circumstances the mar-
riage took place on the Bth October, 1838, and all the
parties were present, with some of the sons, and it was
aroved of by both families. After the marriage
Mr.pp and Mrs. Geils went into Scotland by
the Lakes of Cumberland; they took up their
residence about four miles from Dunbar, but did
not remain long there, in consequence of one of the
servants taking the smallpox; they then returned to
Cononel Geils's, they then went to reside at Dumbrick,
in May, 1841. The first child was born in April, 1841;
they again returned to. Dumbarton, where they resided
three months. In 1843 the second child was born, and
in 1844 the third child. It has been stated that differ-
ences commenced soon after the marriage, and continued
until the separation. The cause of their disputes is said
to have arisen from a difference of their dispositions and
took place two or three months
after their intimacy, and therefore was a hasty one. The
tastes. The marriage
difference of taste was, no doubt, the cause of their dis-
putes. Mrs. Geils was an only child, and after the
death of her father was brought up in seclusion, and
had no one to divide her affections with. Colonel
Geils had five children, who, of course, were more
divided in their affections. This young lady was
considered mild and gentle;
she was counted of an
amiable and unimpeachable character; such was the
evidence of her near neighbours. Her temper was
neither violent nor passionate. These were qualities
which would make her an amiable wife. Considering
her situation in life with reference to temper and for-
tune, she was an
object of attention to the family of
Colonel Geils, whose members had been much attached
to each other. Mrs. Dickenson says she had a great
.
dislike to this family after the marriage, particularly to
'two of its members. Mr. Geils is- said to be a man of
very amiable disposition by his own family, and they
attribute all this unhappiness to the temper of Mrs.
Geils; but there may be some bias in this. It appears
that after the marriage the property of Mrs. Geils was
taken possession of by Mr. Geils, and appropriated to his
own use. This wasdenied. It was said they had one com-
mon purse, which was devoted only to family purposes. A
great deal had been said of her treatment at Dumbarton,
itc.; but it has been stated
where she was kept against her will; and that the house
was not properly furnished,
on the other side, that it was her own choice that she
resided there. This is proved by certain letters which I
think haVe been improperly introduced in this suit, in
which it is said she expressed her dislike to this family.
The Examiner very properly refused to receive these
letters, but they were introduced by the other parties.
In the course of this suit a letter in 1839 stated, we have
received no money, &c., and John has nothing for his
farm, 3et she lived there of her own accord ; I cannot,
therefore, think this is a good cause of complaint.
During her residence here she miscarried four times, and
h ad lone
infant, butiColonel and Mrs. Geils paid her every
attention
during this period, and nursed her at these
Periods( Iherefore, I think there ' was atten-

r':l'': ;~..L

1;3