The Sun.
London, England, 1866-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
MILFORD Y. MILFORD.

This was a petition presented by the wife, praying for
a dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and
cruelty.

The evidence in support of the allegations i❑ the peti-
tion disclosed a series of acts of ill-treatment of the grossest
kind. The petitioner herself was examined to support the
cruelty, and said she was induced to institute the proceed-
ings for the protection of her life. Her husband, she stated
was a person of a very violent temper, and very
frequently when angry with her he would strike her
in the most savage manner. On one occasion he quar-
relled with her and took up the poker and threatened to
dash her brains out ; she, however, got out of the way,
and, thinking her life in danger, she communicated with
her friends, telling them of the treatment she was receiv-
ing from her husband. On other occasions she stated he
would discuss iu the presence of herself and friends the
question of the beauty of several young women with whom
ho was on terms of the closest intimacy. Ile had continu-
ally thrown things at her, and in the year 1863 he at-
tempted to suffocate her with a pillow in the bedroom in
consequence of a quarrel about the removal of the portrait
of a lady from the house.

Evidence having been given to support the evidence
given by Mrs. Milford, and also to support the other alle-
gations of the petition,
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., addressed the Court on behalf of
the respondent, and contended that the most exaggerated
accounts had been given to his lordship of the various
acts of cruelty upon which it was sought to obtain a dis-
solution of marriage. 'With respect to the account given
of the quarrel when it was alleged the respondent took up
the poker and threatened his wife, the evidence of the ser-
vant maid, which had been given to the Court to substan-
tiate it, clearly showed that there was no intention
on the part of Mr. Milford to injure his wife. He
was not there to deny that language of a very
objectionable character had been used that could not be
contradicted, but what he desired to illustrate was that
angry words broke no bones. With respect to the quarrel
when the poker was taken up, the evidence again went to
show that it could not have been of such a violent cha-
racter, as Mrs. Milford herself the next morning went to
her husband and told him that unless he expressed his
sorrow for what ho had done sho would inform hie friends
of his conduct. He did not imagine the Court would at-
tach that importance which the petitioner did to that quarrel
because the matters that occurred shortly after showed that
the wife clic; not.believe that her husband actually intended
to carry out his threat. He did not deny' that frequently
quarrels arose between the parties, and that the husband
used language that was not at all proper for a gentleman,
but then thdt circumstance would not entitle the-petitioner
to a dissolution of her marriage. The story relative to the
alleged suffocation with the pillow was also greatly exag-
gerated, and the fact that the petitioner remained the
rest of the night with her husband in the bedroom
showed that she at the time did not apprehend any
danger to her life. The petitioner had parted from her
husband in the most friendly mauner ; and it was not till
she got into the hands of other parties that the present suit
was thought about and finally brought forward.
His Lordship said the adultery was undoubted, but with
respect to the cruelty he should fully consider the whole
of the evidence before giving judgment.