The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-12 00:00:00

LAW I.N.

7E—Jan. 10,

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell,)
ANTHONY V. ANTHONY.—JUDGMENT.
This was a petition by a wife for a judicial sepa-
ration, on the-ground of cruelty: It was tried be-
fore his lordship on the 19th and 20th of Dec. last,
and was reported in The Sun of the 21st.
Dr. Spinks and Mr. D. Keane appeared for the
petitioner: Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey for
the respendent.
Sir C. Cresswen now delivered judgment. He
said it appeared that the parties were married in
1846, and had three children, born respectively in
1849, 1851, and 1853, and that until 1851 they
lived happily together. In that year a young
woman, named Emma Bennett, went into their ser-
vice, and disputes arose about her. It would be
very difficult to decide whether the petitioner or her
husband was in fault in these disputes ; probably
both were, but the decree of the Court would not
be founded on what then took place. Before the
birth of the youngest child the respondent ceased to
occupy the same bedroom with his wife, and slept
in an apartment adjoining that of Emma Bennett,
although he well knew that his wife was jealous of
her. In the spring of 1853, the petitioner saw, or
fancied she saw, Emma Bennett sitting on her hus-
band's knee. Emma Bennett denied that she had
done so. On another occasion the petitioner heard
a noise in her husband's room, overhead, at night,
went upstairs, and, as site alleged, saw him coming
out of Emma Bennett's room. He and Emma Ben-
nett denied that be had ever been in her room, and
the Court was not convinced that he had; but the
petitioner certainly had reasonable ground for sus-
picion, and he should have been careful as to the
manner in which ho treated Emma Bennett. Dis-
putes afterwards arose, which led to an act of vio-
lence, which he did not deny. The accounts given
of that act of violence by the different witnesses
varied very much, and an examination of them
would show the spirit of partisanship with
which they came into court. Mrs. An-
thony's account was that her husband wished
Emma Bennett to make tea for him • that she said
Emma Bennett should not do it while she was in
the house, and that he then struck her on the head,
broke all the combs in her hair, bruised her temples,
and pushed her out of the room ; that she fell on
the mat, and was assisted upstairs by Mrs. Dann,
a workwoman who was then employed in the house.
Mrs. Dann to a certain extent confirmed that ac-
count. Emma Bennett gave a different version.
She said her master asked Mrs. Anthony to make
tea, and Mrs. Anthony refused. The husband's
account was that be asked his wife to make tea,
that she refused, and threw something at him, and
he took her by the shoulders, and put her out of
the room. He said he knew nothing about her-
combs being broken, but admitted that he struck
her with his open hand. That being the state of
affairs in the house, it was not probable that har-
mony would be restored so long as Emma Bennett
remained in it, but the respondent refused to dis-
charge her. In 1853 the husband was for a time
absent from home, and on his return he complained
that wines and other articles had been taken during
his absence. The petitioner accused the servants
of having taken them, and they accused her of
having given them to some of her relations. The
respondent placed more confidence in the state•
ments of the servants than in those of his wife. An
excited state of feeling was thus produced in her
mind, and in the spring of 1855 it had increased to
such an extent that it was necessary to consult a
medical man. In August, 1855, there was another
instance of actual violence. The dispute commenced
about a trifle—the number of towels he had used in
his studio—and, when she complained that he was
trying to make her out a liar before the servants,
he threw a jug of water over her, and in the end he
struck her a violent blow with his fist, which nearly
stunned her. He admitted that he might then have
struck her on the head, but added that he was so
pained at what he had done that he never struck her
at all afterwards. She said that he did, and,consider-
ing the temper he manifested towards her in the
autumn, 1855, it was not unlikely. His father then
died; he sent Emma Bennett to buy mourning for the
family; the same mourning was bought for her and
for the servants, and in the course of a dispute upon
that subject he said to her that he saw no necessity
for her living, but that if she must live she must
go and prostitute herself. Not one word of that con-
versation did he deny. With regard to the mourn-
ing, it certainly was not very satisfactory to a wife
to be placed exactly on a par with her servants
The petitioner said that early in 1856 he struck her
with a inaulstick, and he deniedit. In the autumn
of 1856 he was absent, and she was left with Ben-
nett, and she quitted the house with two of the
children. The mother of the respondent, and then
the respondent, went to see her, and asked her to
return, hut she refused to do so eintill Bennett was
discharged. A correspondence then took place, in
which she complained of Bennett, among other
things, for tampering with her letters, and he re-
plied that he never had upheld Bennett, and never
would uphold her, in meddling with her mistress's
letters. But in the witness box he said that Bennett
had forwarded a letter of Mrs. Anthony's to him,
by his order, because he did not consider his honour
or his property safe with Mrs. Anthony, and he
wished to obtain evidence as to her conduct. No one
could be surprised, under these circumstances, at
the petitioner's refusal to return home until Bennett
was discharged. The evidence completely negatived
condonation; there was nothing to show that the.
suit had been instituted upon any ground different
from that alleged in the petition, and, as the evi-
dence established that if the petitioner returned
home there would be some danger of a repetition 'of
the acts of violence of which she complained, and
some of which the respondent admitted, the Court
was bound to grant a decree of judicial separation.
SCOTT V. SCOTT.--JUDGMENT.

This case was tried on the 24th of December last.
It was a petition for a judicial separation on the
ground of cruelty. Mr. W. Brandt appeared for
the petitioner.
His Lordship said there was no doubt upon the
evidence that the respondent was a drunken, profli-
gate woman,who made her husband miserable, but he
could not fail to see that the real cause of the pre-
sent application was merely 'a wish to get rid of
her, and he must be cautious in not allowing the
Court to be opened to cases of that description.
There was not such evidence of cruelty on her part
as would justify him in granting a decree, and he
must therefore dismiss the petition.
HAYWARD V. HAYWARD-JUDGMENT.

This was a petition by a wife fora restitution of
conjugal rights. It had been before the court
on several occasions.
Dr. Waddilove appeared for the petitioner.
His Lordship said the present application was
that the costs of the wife might be taxed up to a
certain time. When the case came on for hearing
a negotiation took place, and an arrangement was
come to, he believed with the sanction of both
parties, but the petition was not dismissed. The
petitioner afterwards refused to abide by the ar-
rangement, and asked to have the cause heard. He
thought she was entitled to have it heard, but some
unfortunate occurrences afterwards took place,
which prevented it being brought before the court.
It was a very calamitous affair altogether, but he
was bound to deal with it, and he thought he ought
to allow the wife's costs to be taxed up to the time
when the case came on for hearing, and the com-
promise was made. He should deal with the costs
incurred since that time as a different question.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Tan. 11.

MANSION-HOUSE.—John Thompson was
brought before Mr. Alderman Hale (who sat for
the Lord Mayor), charged with having deserted
from the Royal Artillery at Woolwich.
Sergeant O'Malley, on recruiting service for the
Rifles, said the prisoner came to him early on the
previous day, enlisted, took the usual shilling, and
then went out. Soon after he was gone witness
found he had left in an upper room_of the hcuse -a
bundle containing a pair of trousers belonging to
the Royal Artillery, and, as this confirmed a sus-
picion previously entertained by witness that the
prisoner was a deserter, he watched for his return
and then gave him into custody. The prisoner,
when he offered himself for enlistment, said he had
just returned from India.
Mr. Alderman Hale —Has ho been in India ?
Witness—Yes. He was among the first batch of
men who claimed their discharge when the Indian
army was transferred from the Company to the
Queen, and as soon as he arrived here he enlisted in
the Royal Artillery for the sake of the bounty.
Mr. Alderman Hale—And almost immediately
after deserted from the artillery and enlisted with
you, hoping to get bounty as lin P
Witness—l suppose so; but he only got a shil-
ling. _ _ _

Officer—There was a furlough upon him when I
to,k him into custody, which has not yefrun out.
Mr. Goodman (chief clerk)—But the fact of his
re-enlistment for the merc sake of the bounty makes
the desertion.

Sergeant O'Malley—Yes, and the exchange of
his clothes.

Mr. Alderman Hale—How long Were you in
India, prisoner?
Prisoner—Four years and some odd months.
Mr. Alderman liale—Then were you at Luck-
now?

Prisoner—Yes, Sir, at Lueknow and- Cawnpore,
and Delhi, too.

Mr. A'.derman llale—l am extremely sorry that,
after passing through such dangers, you should be-
have in this disgraceful way.
Prisoner—l shouldn't have deserted only some