Star.
London, England, 1814-07-04 00:00:00

/HZ IftNO vt BROWNING.

The defendant,the owner of asin bggling vessel,
named the Foil was convicted in the penalty of £lOOO
for ?oring on board couttab.ind tobacco, &c.
CONSISTORY COURT,DOCTOR'S COMMONS.

WOOD V. WO'D.

This was a proceeding for a divorce at the instarce
of Elizabeth, the wife of Mr. Charles Wood, a shoe.
mAket In Cornhill, on the ground of cruelty and adul-
tery. It appeared that they were married in Octo-
ber, 1785, and had nine children, three of whom are
living. They lived together for many years, until
lire unpin of the pr. sent suit. A long cause of ill
tttatment was complai:.ed of, but two acts of violence
in particular were specifically charged. The first
originated in an illusion made by the wife to the per-
Man %jilt whom the adultery was charged, upon which
her husband came up to her, and asking her what
SFie me;art!. bT sning " she was the real Mrs. Chalks
Wood ?" struck er most violently, and continued his
ill treatment till she escaped horn him, in doing
which he grasped her breast so roughly, that she was
taken ill, and her life endangered. lie returned into
the room with a horsewhip, but was prevented using
it by ihe entrance of his sun. Upon another occasion,
be beat her violently, and pursued her round the
shop, swearing " he would have the heart's blood out
of her," with other violent and- abusive epithets.—
The adultery consisted of a connection he had formed
in 18h5 with Amy Morgan, a servant in the family ;
in consequence of which, she about a year afterwards
quitted the house, and was kept by him in lodgings,
passing by various names, and sotnesenses by those oh
Mr. and Mrs. Wood.
No evidence was offered in defence ; but it was
contended that the wife knew of the adultery, and by
acquiescing so lung in it, with the personal ill-treaf-
:nem complained of, had deprived herself of her legal
remedy.
Sir WILLIAM Scorr recapitulated the evidence...-.
He observed that the parties had been married near SO
years, and had had'niue children, three of whom were
living. It was always with- extremes reluctance that
the Court discharged its dety in releasing married
persons from the perlorrnancelg their conjugal duties,/
under such circumstances as. these. ft was not tobe

expected that a wife, upon the first discovery of her
husband's infidelity, was to fly immediately to a
Court ofJustice for redress. She might have good
reasons 10 hope for his reformation, and with this
view, forbearance to a certaini extent was highly com-
mendable, But where the adultery was markedby
eircamstanees of notoriety and aggravation, and the
Acquiescence undo/ it was long and continued, it cer•

Willy *hula °pirate as Char to a divorce, OA, how-
'eVer, was not the ease in the litesent instances There
were two grosl facts of cruel'r fully prbved against
the husband, and they were confirmed, by evidence
of his general be!..aviour being motose and harsh in
the extreme, always addressing himself to her in the
language of ill humour, with frequent bursts bt pas-
sion-, whilst she constantly exerted herself in attend-
ing to his domestic comforts, often expressing her
anxiety to have his dinnvr ready in time, &c.
The evidence cf cruelty 'gas therefore sufficient,
and the wife was net barred by any conduct of her's
from claiming her remedy upon that ground.
The connection with Amy Morgan was also fully
proved, and the birth of three illegitimate children
was spoken to by the medical gentleman who atten-
ded her. They lived in several d;fferent lodgings,
And thtligh sometimes passing by the name of Wood,
the wife might not have been able to discover them
immediately, and when she did, her whti
were grown up, and the other strong motives she had
for fotbearance, required tO be allowed some latitude
of time for operation. Under all considerations, there.
fore, the Wife was not barred frotn the remedy which
the atnple proof of the charges, both of cruelty and
adultery, entitlid her to, and he therefore pronounced
for the divorce.