The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 10, 1858.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 9.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
ALLEN V. ALLEN AND ANOTHER.

In this case Dr. Spinks moved to refuse the peti-
tion, by striking out certain allegations which had
been set forth in order to substantiate the aver-
ment of adultery. The learned civilian supported
his motion by referring to the rules of the court,
which he contended laid downthe principle that no-
thing ought to be pleaded beyond the fact of the
marriage and cohabitation, and the grounds upon
which it was sought to dissolve the marriage, or
judicially to separate the parties.
Mr. M'Queen supported the allegations at great
length, and with copious extracts from the report
of the Common Law Commissioners on the subjeet
of pleading. The learned counsel contended that
it was the duty both of plaintiffs and of defendants
to disclose the main features of their case.

The learned Judge was of opinion that the peti-
tion must be reformed, as prayed. No doubt a plain-
tiff was bound to disclose his ground of action, but
he was not bound to show the evidence by which
he intended to prove his case. In the present in-
stance the plaintiff alleged his marriage and the
adultery of the respondent with A. 8., or with some
person unknown. That was quite as much as used
ever to be disclosed by the declaration in an action
for criminal conversation; and it was now contended
that that was not amply sufficient to disclose the
cause of action. The marriage of the parties, and
the subsequent adultery of one of them, were
grounds of action ; but the facts alleged in those
portions of the petition which were objetced to were
not. They must therefore be omitted.

GATES V. OATES.-AN AMIABLE HUSBAND.
This was a petition for a judicial separation on
the lground of cruelty, promoted by Mary Oates
against her husband Philip. The marriage of the
parties took place on the 9th Nov., 1840, at Wal-
ton-on-the-Hill, near Liverpool, and they afterwards
carried on business at No. 65, Parliament-street,
Liverpool, as cowkeepers. They had had three
children. The respondent was a person of intern.
petate habits, and, as his wife deposed, was very
" wicked" in his drink. He used to swear at her,
turn her out of doors, call her foul names, beat her
with his hands, with stable forks, pokers, and other
implements. Once he broke her jaw with a blow
of his fist ; and on another occasion he locked him-
self in a room with her, and beat and abused her
for two hours ; he then ordered her upstairs to bed,
followed her up to the first floor, and flung her out
of the window, by which she sustained the fracture
of three ribs. For this exploit he was sen-
tenced by Baron Alderson to two years' imprison-
ment, and to find sureties for two years additional.
The petitioner procured . the required bail, and set
him at liberty; but by way of rewarding her for
this act of loyalty, he ill-treated her again, and
was again ordered to find bail for six months. In
April last he again beat her, and was for this im-
prisoned three months, and ordered again to find
sureties, in default of which he is still in gaol.

Dr. Wambey, for the petitioner, sub-stantiated
these facts by the evidence of Mrs. Oates herself,
who said that the times she had been ill-treated
were so numerous that she could not say how often.

Elizabeth Taylor, her sister-in-law, corroborated
her statement, and added that when she visited the
petitioner at the hospital, after she had been thrown
out of the window, she was not able to recognise
her, on account of the shocking manner in which
she had been disfigured.
Isaiah Worrell produced copies of the respon-
dent's conviction before Mr. Rushton, the stipen-
diary magistrate of Liverpool, on the sth of
August, when he was ordered to find six months'
bail; of his conviction before Mr. Baron Alderson
in the month of March, 1854, and of his conviction
before two magistrates in April last.
Sir C. Cresswell at once decreed the judicial
separation of the parties, and condemned the re-
spondent in the costs.