Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1840-12-11
THE D'HAUTEviLLE CASE.

paper paragraphs for some months. The
case having boon decided by the Pennsylva-
MIA Courts, il is probable it will hereafter
meet the eye less frequently. For the salts
faction of readers who may not have paid so
much attention to il as to enable them to have
a distinct idea Of the matter in controversy,
VIC place before them the shortest outline we
have seen, which is from the New York Ex-
press.
In the year 1887, Mr.. David Sears, a
highly respectable and wealthy citizen of
Boston, Mrs. Sears and several Of their chill
dren, among whom was the respondent, made
a visit 10 Europe. While in Paris, the lat
ter became acquainted with the relator, M.
D'HautcvilIc. The respondent then Miss
Ellen Sears, was a beautiful gIrl Of about
eighteen, possessing an intellect elegantly
cultivated, and the most refined manners.
D'II. was a young gentlemen Of about twcn-
ty-fivc years of age, a native Of Switzerland.
He was the son of very respectable parents
with whom he lived near Geneva. After
short acquaintance between tho parties, NJ.
OH. made proposals of marriage to Miss
Sears, which were at first rejected These
proposals were, however, renewed; and af-
ter the arrangements Of some pccuniary af-
fairs, they were married. This marriage
took place at Montreux, in 1887. 1t seems
that almost Immediately after they were
married, difficulties arose between them, and
the time which the respondent spent in Eu-
rope, previously to leaving her husband to
visit her fathers family in Boston, was
season Of great unhappiness. In the early
part of 1889, Madam D'Hautevlc, with the
consent of her husband, came to this country
on temporary visit. Since her arrival
here, however, owing, as she alleges, to some
views expressed in letters from her husband
written 10 her father and herself, she became
fixed in determination not to return. On
the 9th of September, 1888, male child,
the issue Of the said marriage, was born in
Boston. In the month of July, 1889, the
rclator came to this country, and has since
been engaged in fruitless endeavors to regain
his wife and child. He succeeded so far as
to have his case fully heard by the Court of
General Sessions, who refused to take the
child away from its mother.
A full report Of this case, 300 pages octa-
W. IidS OCCi I'LL IIiuetIPuius L ut>
reporter has given in full, the returns, an
swers, and suggestions Of the respective par
ties; these appear to have been prepared by
their counsel, and profess TO give a statement
of the facts of the case, and the conclusions
which there ought to he drawn from them.
Then follows the testimony, which consists
Of letters that passed between the parties and
others concerned, both before and after the
narriagc-thc dispositions of Mrs. Farrar
DR.. J. c. Warren and others-the oral cvi.
dence Of Mr.. and Mrs. Sears, Doctors Chap.
man and Meigs and Miss Sears, the sister o
the respondent. We then have, in con.
densed form, the arguments of counsel, will
the authorities cited, and the opinion of the
Court at length.
The decision of the Court is now the SUBJ
lject Of newspaper comment. The New
York American calls it ian extraordinary de-
cision-cxtraordinary not less in its Language
and reasoning, than in its conclusions" TIN
Philadelphia Gazette calls it "a righteou
decision" The Philadelphia North Ameri
can comments upon it in the following fash
5 iVn,-
There is one feature in the opinion of tn
Court on this case which strikes us as a novel
~. The doctrine that wife may separate
herself from her husband without ground
that would justify divorce, is new discov
2 cry in ethics. We had supposed there wer
but two positions in which woman, ono
married, could be found; the one where tn
marriage contract left her, the other wher
she may be placed by divorce. Butt seem
that there is an intermediate position, sol
of middle ground, to which she may walk
where she may stay and spend her days with
;, out any Of the onerous duties imposed b.
II marriage, or any ofthe disadvantages attend
;, ant on divorce. In moral map the lcarne
y !" court discovered this intermediate state, tn
= terra incognita, we are no. told; cerainl
=" they never found it in the Bible. Hudibra
e indeed, appears to have had some refcrenc
|, to its topography in the lines
And where wife that runs away,
May hold the law itself at bay.
We could wish their honors had informe
IS US of the exact degree Of domestic discor
u that would Justify wife in escaping to tn
5; neutral ground. The ladies arc now left CT
{, tirely in the dark on the subject. The col
q sequence will be that some will run too sool
= !; and some perhaps not soon enough. The
II should also have informed us how long wi
Is may remain there without FORGETTING the rigl
+ of return. They should have told US no
IS long wife may remainthere without forfei
|" ing the right ola return. They should ha,
y told us how the husband is to get along in Il
10 mean time, and above all, whether either
- the parties could apply, successfully for d
IS vorce-but it seems, il their honors be CO
" rect, there is no legitimate ground for
= vorce. The wife cannot obtain it, bccau
~ the husband has not given sufficient occasion
y, and the husband cannot obtain it, because
- is the personin fault. Truly, as the immo
.. tai Weller would say, their situation is I'VE,
~ peculiar" But seriously: arc the respons
Is bities of the marriage contract to be tn
70 y lightly set asidel Are the duties which Il
~ solcmnties Of that contract impose to be tn
~ triAed withl We trust not the sacr,
D, mandate is-what God hath Joined toge,ht
let no man put asundcr.