The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-11-30
TIE Fanny Kemble Divorce Case.


ters which were sent by Mrs Butler to her husband,
previously to her finally leaving his house The first
Of these represents her condition such as TO
render her situation unpleasant aud her life unhappy,
and praying for alteration That letter remained
us sbs leaves the bonse declarins That
the condition Of her coming there had been violated
She 10 not followed by any intimstion from MN tnat
she should return her absence followed up by
any offer to receive her back. appears by the cases
cited that where wife leaves her husband criminal
y-wbere she leaves in consequence OF an offence not
committed by the act Of leaving IL Is the duty OF the
husband not to leave her exposed to danger morally
Do merely leaving but against his
will In Holland, Prussia, and other countries from
which our system is derived the husband Is required
to make an attempt to win back the vile VINO
has deserted his habitatton. During the last
rehabilitation, the course of conduct OF the II.
bslant was such, the position Of Mrs Butler was
80 and the crcum stances which sur
rounded her SO humiatng, thatf they were short OF
renee of legal ind gritty and justified her in leaving
his house other words there are circumstances NOT
sufficient to authorize divorce, but sufficient to found
legations of defence which may be set up In answer
libel for divorce Here they are suficient TO ent1e
her divorce, she were inclined to seek one Mrs
Butler alleges that she has been subjected to such
crueties and indgnities as rendered her conditon
intolerable and her life burthensome. We are now
told that the English rule must be adopted, and
strict cruelty proved the cruelty which endau the
life or person But let apply ourselves to the act OF
Assembly upon which this proceeding is founded. 1t
does not say that It says absolutely the reverse OF
that We have gone from that state OF judicial feeling
which obtains in ana crustv W. have
sSortsS the beief that in civilized and ned
community, there are mental sufsrngs which are
more painful than the most aggravated physical injury
Hence recognizes that there are circumstances
which will render the condition intolerabe, and life
and indignity. In the advance Of civzation, the
day has arrived when indignty affecting the mind
violence which could be offered We do not undertake
to show personal injuries to the respondent but we
show such OF ndsn t 10 tb,
part of the act Of Assembly What may be nconsi-
dered indignity to one, may not affect another-
There is o difference in the mind and 1t Is for
jury to find the fact, whether the condition Of
the respondent was such as to render her life
intoerable and her condition burthensome The Eng
sh feel the pressure of the doctrine that
nothing but personal violence is cruelty. n Eff
ton AK s Of their
law, that the suffering person must be beaten. In
that 1t s said that an attempt by the husband
strong indignity to the wife. In the of Durant
Durant, same book and page, 1t is said that the
upon part the wife and turning her out Of DOORS
which not personal Injuries were strong circum
stances Of osusy IN guar ss bA sSs sns
held to be sreDg circumstances OF cruelty 1t is
for such personal ndigntes that our act Of Assembly
provides The modern harsh form Of the English law
is fit for barbarous times but not ft for the
sent. The English courts are nevertheless going back
to that original state Of the law that existed before the
middle ages. The harsh and severe doctrine that
nothing but personal violence is cruelty, was
whsn there 0s was sp retrosads from civilization
between the time when enlightenment pervaded Eu.
sna time to saa tho be
Of the nespo there here circumstances OF
cruelty We are told that all these o;,ou%st.ncs;
should his wifes questions In regard
TO the disposition of his children and turn away to-
head In the management instruction, and Of her
na1ren; nothing that she was placed In bis house
Srs sfthe house not to see those whose endshp
she had long reed that she not to see those whom
she loved nothing that when che refused to reneunce
her NM to her dover, matter which the law says
must Be Zone Of her own free will and accord, and
without coercion from her husbsnd;' she told now,
since vol choose to interfere with my business you
shall not to the Darby farm where the children are
An these acts we are told are no inSisns' and are
doubtedly plessant. Is there indigny in placing
the wife At the table with NO permission to speak
to her husband and constraining her to place all her
communications in writing! All these circumstances
such te render the condition of the wife ntole.
rsble and are under the act Of Assembly give
her right to 90 before a jury.
MIR. Meredith having concluded the Court was ad-
emit, Mrs Butler. He spoke Of the present condition
of Mrs. aud the fact that in another and distant
commonwealth she found fe DIS who willing to aid
and sympatbise. To those friends she fed for
shelter, and the severity Of her Affections was
such to them to assist her In this the sharp
est trial Of her fe It at the desire of her. and
by those friends thought not undesirable that there
should be some one engaged In the matter whose
Of modes practice-not to instruct your honors in
the law of this ancient Commonwealth-but to convey
ward her by those whom she looks alone for sympa
thy in this day Of her adversity An alien by BIRTH
eour. with citizen Of this state, her counsel will en-.
deav.r to show that in this her cause Is just and
sa, the law
the same at Rome Attica, and shall not stop to
enquire whether we have here the form OF the eccles
positions which shall confne myself easy, and
my purposes humble 1t is to take the snswer as laid
before you, and will submit what shall say upon that
answer taking It az Il Is supported by OATH and
hbits and by nothing therefore propose
up subtano Of the facts in the and
the substance of the issue presented and next what
ia the law applicable to those facts. therefore, am
prepared show that there has been deserton of
the hsbitation of the husband, because, in the au
tumn Of ls43 two years before that departure from
sent libel these parties establ shed such relation be-
tween Themselves relation, practically OF sepa-
rstsn,a termination Of the , united ismxhiGh
from the husband to the WIFE to go whittier she
would where che would, and when she would. We
yember 1s43, the parties established this relation,
which remained until the day that she hed from his
hsbitation with broken heart We hold that there
has been no de.ertion, a matter of law because
Mrs. Butler left by the express consent OF her bus.
90 We hold that ,he was licensed to CO. by acts and
declara tions which designed to leave her In no
doubt that he desired her Absence And We hold,
lastly, that there deserton within the meaning
of the statute because submit that she WAS justi
FED in withdrawal by course Of indgnities ascend
ing descending which ended to make her life bur-
tbeusome and intolerabe The agreement OF October,
ls43 clearly established the right Of Mrs d. to go
where and when she would, with distinct intimaton
on his part that he would rather che would seek any
other than that which sheltered her children.
Under such conditions desertion became impossible.
This continued until the moment Of DEPARTURE
on that day in which she recognized that the con-
jugal love had become estlGs iished by the terms
Of that fecog ton the connexion ceased and the
lation came to end. They no longer to live
together as husband and wife they were separated
and parted and there was an express authority to
read extracts from of the letters passing between
members Of the Sedgwick family, and Mr.. Butler In
one of these addressed to the latter 1t Ia said
dtrsand that you have declared that If she wished to
live apart you would make objection" MIR. But
Ter GAYS III she wishes to live SEPARATE shall make
oppostion to her desire and in another 81 said she
could live in this house any other adhere to that