The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-07 00:00:00

she had formed the conclusion that the Roman Catholic was
oreferable to the Protestant faith?
The witness asked his lordship whether this was a perti-
nent question and whether she was bound to answer it ?
(A laugh.)
Baren 13ramwell said he saw no reason why she should
not answer the question.
She then said that she could not state exactly when she
came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic religion
was preferable to the Protestant.
In answer to other questions, put by the learned counsel
for the defendant, the witness said she believed the amount
hat was claimed for keeping Mrs. Vansittart was about
!time guineas or three guineas and-a-half a week, but it was
not snore than she cost. They were not bound to keep Mr.
Vansittri's wife. lie was better able to keep her than they
were. One of the children was taken away by Mrs. Van-
sittart as she was returning from school ; but it had been
arranged that she should have the custody of this child, the
little girl, at the time of the separation. She did nut know
whether her sister took this child to a Catholic place of
worship.
Re-examined—When the defendant left his wife, in Sept.,
1856, she was without means. He took the two boys away
Kith him. Her sister was very much attached to these boys,
and she nearly went out of her mind when they were taken
from her.
Miss Rachel Busk deposed that she lived -with her father
in Cumberland-place, Hyde-park. In February, 1857, her
sister was staying at her father's with the family. She re-
membered the defendant coming to the house upon one oc-
casion, and he stated that he had sold all the furniture, and
that there was no home for his wife or children to be taken

to.
Cross-examined—Her sister went to Brighton with the
family in the autumn, and they used to walk cut together.
Her sister before the separation had been abroad with her
husband and other members of her family, but she was not
aware that the first cause of her sitter and her husband having
a dispute was on account of her sister going to Catholic
churches and convents, and being in communication with
priests and nuns.
Mr. Hay, the plaintiff, deposed that he was on friendly
terms with the family of the defendant's wife, and an arrange-
meut was made that s'ae and her children should board and
lodge at his house. He had charged for the accommodation
at the rate of three guineas and a-half per week, and he
considered this was a reasonable charge.
Mr. Austin, the attorney for the plaintiff, produced the
deed of separation and other documents referred to is the
case. He also proved that when the defendant left this
country, he traced him through France to Switzerland, and
ultimately found him at Geneva. He then told him that it
wasc no o
Cross-examined—Witness
was _ use
here
and gone to-morrow.
Witness was the attorney in all the
haddg him, for he had got £l,OOO in his box, and
he
eady—been brought against the defendant in
actions
r sthate xasnut
cl
reference to these transactions. He had also brought au
action against the defendant himself for pulling his nose.
There was likewise a fifth action against him for the costs
incurred in preparing the deed of separation, and other
matters, and be had served him with a writ in this last
action since the defendant had been at Guildford.
At the close of •the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Baron
Bramwell suggested whether it would not be a satisfactory
mode of settling all these disputes by referring the whole
matter to some gentleman at the bar, who should have the
power to say what ought to be done.
Mr. Chambers said he was sorry that his instructions pre-
vented him from acceding to his lordship's suggestion, and
the present action must at all events go to the jury.
Mr. James then proceeded to sum up the case of the
plaintiff, and he said it appeared to him that the case was
entirely an undefended one, and he repeated his surprise
that any one in the position of the defendant should have
allowed such an inquiry to take place. He said that it
. had been clearly made out that the defendant, forgetful
of his position in society, and of the feelings of a man,
had treated his unhappy wife in a most bru'al and un-
manly manner, and the only excuse that was attempted
to be made for his conduct was that his wife had em-
braced the Roman Catholic faith. Supposing even that
this were an excuse, there was no doubt that he had
himself first instilled Puseyite notions into her head,
and the natural consequence had followed ; and he
put it to the jury whether it was at all extraordinary that
she should have taken such a step when she bad such an
example of a Protestant clergyman before her, one who
talked of leaving off p4tying cards, and alluded to adultery
as flirtation. The lea' ned counsel concluded by stating that
it appeared to him the plaintiff's case had been clearly esta-
blished, and that the only excuse that could be made for the
defendant was that he was not of sound mind.

Mr. Chambers made a very eloquent and able speech to
the jury on behalf of the defendant. He said that it ap-
peared to him that his learned friend had endeavoured to
lead them away from the real question at issue, and, by the
use of hard words and abusing the defendant, had endea-
voured to induce them to come to a conclusion contrary
both to the law and the facts. He should, therefore, en-
deavour to lay the real question before them; and in the
first place he would tell them what the law was with regard
to those unhappy quarrels between man and wife, and if he
was wrong his lordship would correct him. When a man
and wife agreed to separate, it did not follow at all, as a
matter of course, that the latter had any power to pledge the
credit of her husband, but if she had sufficient means to sup-
port herself she was bound, by law, to do so, and she was
not entitled to make her husband liable for the cost of her
maintenance. He then referred to the evidence as to the con-
dition of the parties, and said that there was nothing to show
that the defendant had an income of a thousand a-year;
but, on the contrary, it appeared that the utmost extent of
his income was not more than four or five hundred a-year,
and out of that sum he would have to maintain and educate
his children, and bring them up. It had been proved that
the lady received £l5O a-year from her father, and this sum
was made up from other sources to more than £lBO, and be
submitted that this was quite sufficient for her maintenance,
and that she had no right to incur an expense of three
guineas and a half per week, and then seek to recover
that amount from her husband. He then proceeded to
comment upon the hardship of three separate actions
being brought against the defendant, and he said there
could be no doubt that the family of his wife were at the bot-
tom of the whole proceedings, and that the present plaintiff
was merely put forward to act in that respect, and that the
object sought to he at allied was the ruin of the unhappy
defendant. He was unwilling, he said, on this, or in any
other case, to enter on the discussion of religious matters;
but on the present occasion he was bound to state to the jury
his impression that the course this lady had taken on be-
coming a convert to the Roman Catholic religion, and in as-
sociating, while abrcel, with priests and nuns, and attending
Roman Catholic places of worship, had been the original cause
of all the unhappiness that had taken place, and he put it is
the jury whether anything was more calculated to excite
a Protestant clergyman, who conscientiously enterained
Protestant opinions, than to find that his wife hai em-
braced what he conceived to be an erroneous creed, and
that she was endeavouring to bring up his children in the
same doctrine. The learned counsel then went on to com-
ment upon the evidence, and said that, if the jury believed
that the defendant's wife, at the time of their separation,
was in a condition to maintain herself, the defendant was
entitled to a verdict.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, in summing up, said that, although
the case had lasted a considerable time, the real question
at issue he should have thought might have been disposed
of in a very few minutes. They had nothing to do with
the manner in which the defendant behaved towards his
wife, or with High Church, or Low Church, or Catholicism,
or anything of the kind ; and he might observe that, in his
opinion, every one would do well to endeavour to make
himself a good Chri,tian, and leave the particular shade of
Christianity to which he belonged to be se*tled afterwards.
The only question for the jury was, whether the defendant
was liable to pay for the support and maintenance of his
wife upon the evidence before them. In law, when a hus-
band turned his wife adrift—and it must he understood
that he did not intend to make use of that term in an
effensive manner, hut when they separated by consent
—if the wife had no means, she was net permitted to
starve, but she was allowed to pledge her husband's credit
for her support according to his position, but she was not
permitted to do more. In the prts.:mt ease the defendant
was proved to have t •Id his wife that he had no home for
her, and she was therefore compelled to provide for herself,
and the only question in the cause was whether she had done
so in a manner that she was net justified, according
underth two
citlr-
ie
cu m positionstanco of
ef
the
te)
wasehroui sn ht
entitled
ta7
dao r
a s not;te
a and if in their opinion the
charge on ,b
verdict.
The jury irnmediae:ly returned a verd:ct for the plaintiff
f r the full amount.
Mr. Cook applied for speedy execution, acd 11! s lordship
granted the application.