The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-08 00:00:00

CURTIS V. CURTIS.

This was an appeal, made by Mr. Curtis in, person, from
a decision of the Judge Ordinary, in a cause heard before
his lordship in June last. From the statement of Mr. Cur-
tis, an engineer, late of New Yerk, it appeared that the first
step in the case was taken in this court, Feb., 1858. On the
20th of the month, the citation to appear was served,
and on the 24th the Judge Ordinary made an interim order,
that the custody of the child should be confided to the
petitioner, Mrs. Curtis. on.the 11th of March the respon-
dent filed his answer; on the 23d the wife joined issue, and
on the 16th of,April the Judge Ordinary directed the case
to be tried. On the 18th of May and three following days,
after a great deal of evidence had been heard, the
learned judge decreed a judicial separation, as it was
fully considered that the alleged cruelty had been made out,
and the custody of the children was finally confided to the
mother. By this decision. the respondent considered that
he had not received that justice which he was entitled to,
and therefore that he had been very greatly aggrieved.
On the 28th of November, 1858, notice of appeal was given,
and as it was the first time such a question had arisen, the
Judge Ordinary, ordered that the application for a reversal
of judgment should be made to the full Court. In the
evidence given at the trial he contended portions of it ought
to have been rejected, and other portions—
Lord Campbell said the Judge Ordinary was fully ac-
quainted with the evidence, and Baron Martin and himself
had read and fully considered it, so that the applicant need
not occupy the Court in reading it in detail. The best course
would be to state the general effect, or to direct the atten-
tion of the Court to any particular part of the evidence.
He (applicant) could also refer to any part of it, which
should be read if he wished it.

Mr. Curtis said he would proceed as his lordship directed.
In.the first place, he denied the three aller„ations contained
in the petition of Mrs. Curtis.
Lord Campbell—Will you be good enough to read the
three allegations of cruelty ? •
_ _

Mr. CurtN—Certainly. The first act of cruelty was
alleged to have been cOmmLed while residing at 16,
Charing-cross ; the second at Blenheim-terrace; and the
third while living in the State of New Yo'rk, when it: as
alleged he struck his wife. My lord, I deny the Whole
of the acts of cruelty attributed to me. In addition to the
three allegations above-mentioned at the trial, a fourth
allegation was brought forward. The acts of cruelty in the
three first allegations extended, over a period of from 1846
to 1852; but the fourth brought the period down from
the year 1852 to February, 1358. Now, he con-
tended that it was the bounden duty of the legal
advisers of Mrs. Curtis, both by law and justice, to have
furnished him with a list of the exact charges to be Lrought
against him, in order that he might have an opportunity of
fully preparing his defence, but he hal been completely
taken by surprise, and hid been thereby prevented from
fully answering the charges contained in the alle-
gations of Mrs. Curtis. It had been stated by Mrs.
Curtis that, he had locked her up in a
room and refused her father access to her ; but the gravest
of the allegations was that which took place at New York,
in which city Mr. Curtis held a very responsible situation,
as an engineer, where it was charged he refused his wife
medical assistance when she was ill, and forcibly separated
her children from:. her.' Then he went on to say that even
if the various acts of cruelty had been made out, whiCh he
(applicant) contended had not been the case, he considered
that he was an irresponsible agent, because in the
year 1852 he was attacked with brain fever, which
increased so violently that he was confined in the
Blooliendale Lunatic Asylum, and it was previous to this
confinement that the acts of cruelty were alleged to have
been committed. Mr. Curtis then proceeded to enter into
a great many details of a very painful family nature, and
said he believed his lunacy was brought on solely from in-
tense study,-for the purpose of benefiting hie wife and
family, and he considered that he had been treated with the
greatest harshness and injustice. Under all the circum-

stances he thought that tile peadoner had wholly failed to
make out a charge of cruelty aga;nst him, 'and he was,
therefore fully entitled to the relief he prayed for.
[The case was not concluded when we went to press.]