The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-01-21
Ths Fanny Ke.~ble Boiler Csse-Deeision
Of the Cart.
PHrLApE4rHrA, January 20. 1879.

Fhs Fanny Kemble Boiler oase-Deeisaen
or the CART.
PHILADELPHIA, January 20, 1919.
The der,eion, in the case of Pierce Butler o.
Fanny Kemble Builder, for divorce. was given this
morning by Judge King, the president of the curt
Of Common Pleas. The matter was before the
court upon libel by the husband, tor the cause Of
wilful and malicious desertion ON the part of the
wife, ard her answer, denying desertion, and set
ting up facts relied upon sufficient to justify and
authorize her withdrawal She claimed a right
oil trial by Jury, to determine whether her husband
was eniltled to a divorce. To this answer there
were exceptions, directing to the statements ac-
companying The answer. as irrelevant and I'M
pertinent.
The decision was long and able, covering about
forty pages, and reviewing the law In it's various
aspects. The points. however, were few and
plain, and can be very succincty stated.
The answer itself sets up three defences:-
l. Because she left her husband under circumstances
which justified her in leaving.
2. That she had his assent and subsequent license
5. That without his license she justified by his
cruel treatmen MT which rendered her condition intol
cradle, and life burdensome
The libellant goes into long narrative Of the or
cumstsnces upon which she Pounds her defence, and
claims the right Of establishing her position before
The actual question before the court wa, upon the
answer and the exceptions to all parts beyond
denial. The Judge went into . long review of the
ecclesiastical law upon tho practice under which the
answer with its voluminous statements was fou ndsd
Upon review Of the matter, the court are Of Opinion
that the narrative the not in
accordance with the practice OF the State Of Penn
sylvanis 1t pune surpusage, and extrAneous to the
1t the exceptions fall The then stands upon the
principles Of the Pennsylvania prActice-upon the
must 20 to jury trial The Jury will then determine
| whether tho abandonment by the wife was with tee
consent Of the husband and whether the reason, set
court might end; but the case Is to go to jury 1t
will be necessary to settle some principles Of Law dis
| cussed on the argument, and which must rule the
| case
The first proposition argued was: That If tho .ev.
license, and had his subsequent approval, what effect
subsequent revocation Of his consent might have.
,ns Srsns sns s0ss1 are That there
by the wife could not he wifuy malicious, from the
fact Of its not being wiful If BY agreement and
clearly in evidence that each Is in equal fault,
neither claim the benefit Of the law in reference
tion the right Of each party to remain absent con.
tinues until revocation and recall by the other.
psry continuing the sS,epos VIII b. sasy 81
ZION In such case however, the question may arise
whether there was previous came for absence. II
there was, the party would be justified In sbsenc
The second matter is in relation to desertion and
what IL the reasonable cause which wilt justify it
that the which would justify ton must b.
euch as would sntitle the party withara wing to q
divorce, II he she disposed to apply for one
The third question is In regard to the CONSTRUCTION
Of that clause of the Assembly which gives the
wife right 10 withdraw from her husbanaa Ia sits-
ton, In consequence Of cruel and barbarous
endargeripg her life and rendering her condition
tolerable and life burdensome Though che English
to establish that cruelties' are person
ndgnities and injuries law differs somewhat from
It, The refuta by the husband to give tho wife
eares according to her habits would be srueties in
| England and here The question what are necesss.
ries upon the education and Of tho
woDan What to lady delicatsly and tenderly rear.
ed might be absolutely necessary for her comfort,
might be superhuit to woman raised under ster ner
and less favorable circumstances. This only applies
Afforded the wife, IL question which must be left to
the husbands discretion his means and his lbsraty.
question greatly discussed suppose husband
persists In course Of bvmatng persec utious
aDces and insults, would bs cruelty although not
panied with violencei In case in which su 81
circumstances arise they would to legal cru.
city worse than acts Of violence, resulting from out
breaks Of temper, and showing malig nifty of spirit
which could not but act torture upon the unfortu-
nate victim.
The judgment Of this court is that the parts Of the
answer beyond the denial of the bss alleg stion
be stricken out surpusege; that the exceptions
dfmissed, and the cause down for trial by jury
This dispose OF this matter, in which the public
feel 30 much interest, tor the present--perhaps for
| ever. Public opinion seems to be In favor of Mrs
| Butler, but we must recOllect that we ha re only
| heard one side. To the volumnous averments
aud allegations OF his wife, Mr.. B. has made no
answer. We know not what he can complain of
! If he chooses. Whether he will stand the trial or
abandon the proceeding, time will show. The
tiial cannot teke place until March terra it NAV
| be postponed until fall.