The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-15 00:00:00

HITCHCOCK V. HITCHCOCK.

This was a suit instituted by the wife for judicial
separation on the ground of her husband's cruelty,
to which he pleaded denial.
It appeared from the opening statement of coun-
sel that the petitioner was a widow and barmaid at
the St. George public-house, Knightsbridge, where
she became acquainted with respondent, who was a
farmer, living at Northolt, near Harrow, Middle-
sex. They were married in September, 1855,
and afterwards removed to Northolt, where the
petitioner became very ill in consequence of the
dampness of the farm house where they were resid-
ing. This occurred about two months subsequent
to the marriage, and the alleged ill-treatment com-
menced, and was continued until 1859, when the
parties fiAally separated. It appeared also that the
petitioner was convinced that her husband had been
guilty of adultery with a female named Edwards, as
well another woman, during the period of their co-
habitation, but as she was not in possession of legal
proof the charge was not placed on the record.
Ann Druce stated that she was acquainted with
Mrs. Hitchcock and was present at her second mar-
riage, but she did not know her name as a widow.
Mrs. Hitchcock, the petitioner, was then exa-
mined at considerable length. She said that she
had been introduced to the respondent when in the
service of Mr. Wallace, the proprietor of the St.
George public-house, and her first husband had been
dead about three years at that time. She had no
property, but she was possessed of some furniture
at the time of her marriage. She was suffering very
severely from inflammation about two months after
her removal to Northolt, and then her husband
treated her with great cruelty. He refused to sup-
ply her with money, and kept her chiefly on bacon,
notwithstanding the state of her health. Shortly
the marriage a woman named Ed-
wards,
thesubsequent
wifeti9 feof
a carter c'
came to live in her hus-
band's service. The witness here repeated some'of
the epithets which the respondent was in the habit
of addre
and which were of the coarsest

and most offensive description. On one occasio
he struck her with his fist, and knocked her down,
while she was in the kitchen, She went to the
parlour, and he followed her. He asked her
what she was looking for, and she said she wanted
her bonnet. Upon which he took hold of her by
the hair, and dragged her along the floor. He
afterwards locked her up in a room, where she re-
mained for three hours, and she released herself by
forcing off the lock of the door. She then stated
that she was obliged to seek the protection of the
magistrates ; but on her husband's promises of
amendment she went to live with him again.
She accused him of his familiarity with the woman
Edwards, which he did not deny. He said to her
that she was no wife of his, and only a paltry ser-
vant when he married her. She had some conver-
sation with him respecting his eldest son on the
subject of doing better for him by putting him into
business, on which occasion he c ught hold of her,
and threw her out of the house into a ditch. She
then went to Wcstend, and afterwards obtained
admission into the Hillingdon workhouse. There
she was visited by Edwards, who brought her some
things, and she went to a lodging in Hillingdon.
Her husband came to fetch •her, and she was so
weak and ill that she had to be carried down stairs
to the fly. When they reached home she was
placed in a bed in her room, and was ill for a fort-
night, but she had no doctor during that time. On
one occasion she repeated to him a conversation
that she had overheard between him and Edwards,
and he kicked her on the side. As soon as she was
able to leave the house she came to London, and
went to the Palace Stores, Pall-mall. The witness
then detailed other acts of ill-treatment which she
received while under her husband's roof, and ac-
cording to her statement one of the sons had
threatened to throw her into a pond unless she left
the house, and called her In reference to
this remark, her husband said it wls all right, that
she was is - during her whole life, and that if he
had known what he did then he would never have
married Ler. It appeared further that from the time
of the marriage till she finally left they separated
frequently, and during one of these temporary ab-
sences he threatened to shoot her if she returned
home.
In cross-examination the witness admitted that
she had thrown a saucer at her husband, and that
uu %me veuttalvu Lc wwplalnea ut her ftitlll-
liarity with a man named Pinks, a barman, who
had lived in service with her at Mr. Wallace's
public-house. She took out of a bureau a gold
watch which belonged to her mother, and a silver
tankard which bad been given to her by a deceased
relative, as well as a gold snuff-box which had been
given her brother by the Marquis of Westminster.
She had also taken away her clothes against his
wishes. She denied she had ever taken home any
brandy, or that she had ever been intoxicated.

Two witnesses were called, who deposed to the
state of the petitioner's health at the time she was
at Hillingdon, and to disputes having taken place
between the parties.
Mr. Cole, a farmer, said he called on the respon-
dent on business about four years ago, and saw him.
His wife was in the room with him, and some dif-
ference took place between them, when he turned
her out of the room. Mrs. Hitchcock called her hus-
band an " old devil," and said that he had killed
his first wife. Mr. Hitchcock frequently asked her
to be quiet and allow him to transact his business.
In turning her out of the room Mr. Hitchcock did
not use more violence than was necessary.

Thomas Skipton, a policeman, stated that in Oct.,
1859, he was called into the Duke of Kendall, or
the Kendall Arms public-house, for the purpose of
removing Mrs. Hitchcock, who was stated to be
creating a disturbance there. He went up stairs and
found Mr. and Mrs. Hitchcock in a room. Mr.
Hitchcock was in the act of searching her boxes.
He asked Mrs. Hitchcock if he was her husband,
and being told that he was, he said he could do no-
thing in the matter, and was about to leave, when
Mrs. Hitchcock came across the room with a news-
paper in her hand, which she wanted to show wit-
ness. (The paper was understood to contain an
order of affiliation on the respondent by the magis-
trates.) Mr. Hitchcock caught hold of her round
the waist and endeavoured to take the newspaper
from her, but did not succeed.
Some other evidence as to what occurred, at the
Duke of Kendall was given, which closed the peti-
tioner's case. . _ _

For t1;-defence the respondent was examined,
who denied in the most positive manner that he had
ever been guilty of ill-treatment towards his wife,
but, on the contrary, that she behaved most vio
lently to him, throwing cups and saucers at him,
and on one occasion threatening to stab him with a
carving knife. She was addicted to intemperance,
and he had to pay a large bill which she incurred
at a public-house.
The case was not concluded at the rising of the
Court, and was adjourned till Thursday, 23d inst.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Dr.S wabey appeared
for the petitioner, and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Dr.
Spinks for the respondent.