The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-03-20
SCANDAL IN HIGH LIE.


luton OF marriage on the ground OF the wfe's
adultery He also claimed damages against the |
correspondent. The respondent appeared, and
traversed the charge; the correspondent did not
appear.
br. Swabey and Mr.. Hodgson for the pet
toner; DR.. Deane, Q. c., and Dr. Tristrsm for
the respondent.
The petitioner, Mr. Francis William Henry
Cavendlsh, is gentleman of good family, and
on the oath OF April, 1856, he married the re-
spondent Lady Eleanor Sophia Diana Fitz-
gibbon, who was the daughter OF the Earl and
Countess OF Clare.
They cohabited at Hyde Park street. Hyde
Park Square and other places In London, and
had three children, the youngest Of whom Is
about three years OF age. In 1861 the petitioner
met with q severe accident, and he IN conse'
quence went abroad with his family for some
time. he returned in the course Of 1862, and
took up his residence at Silverlands, near ST.
Leonard's. The correspondent, Lord Cecil James
Gordon, married the half.sister of Lady Caven-
dish, and Is the lather OF nine children, the
eldest being about twenty-five years Of age
Standing in the relationship OF brother-in-law to
the petitioner, the greatest intimacy existed
between the two families. In June, 1864, he
went, accompanied by his daughter, on visit
to Silverlands, and while there he tell i'll.
He was nursed with every possible kindness
and attention, and it was also stated that hrs
circumstances were such that in other matters
likewise he was under obligations TO the petit
toner. Shortly after this visit he came to re-
side with his family at a place called Gray's
Lodge, quite close to silverlands. The intimacy
between the two families became, If possible,
greater; but the close relationship and the dis
parity of years between the res spondent and CO.
respondent, he being sixty and she not more
than twentyseven or twenty-eght years of age,
precluded all idea OF suspicion. On the Both
January, 1866, Lord Cecil Gordon dined as usual
at the petitioners house, and few days after
wards, on the I'd February, Lady Eleanor Caven-
dish left her house tor London, on the pretanse
Of visiting her mother Lady Clare, who was
then ill.
She was accompanied to the station bv her
husband, and was expected to return home the
next day. On the following day, accordingly,
the carriage was sent twice to the station to
meet her; but the suspicious OF the petitioner
were not aroused until day or two subse-
quently, when letter he had written to her to
her mothers address was returned 1t was then
found that Lord Cecil Gordon had also left his
home. Inquiries were set on foot, and he and
Lady Eleanor were traced to Paris and Nice.
where they were found living as man and wife,
and passing under the name Of Graham. In
stating the case to the jury, the learned counsel
(Bir. Hodgson) observed that the motive which
must have influenced the correspondent in the
matter was as diseraeeful as his conduct.
In January, 1864, Lord Glare died. and by his
will all Of his property, after the death Of Lady
Clare, reverted to his daughter Lady Eleanor
Cavendish. The correspondent was man of
pleasure, and IN endeayorlng to account for his
conduct, the learned counsel suggested that he
was probably anxious to live upon the Dountlful
fortune into the possession OF which he well
knew Lady Eleanor would soon come. What
ever his motive might be, he had deserted his
wife and children, and had broken up the home
OF the man by whom he had been overwhelmed
with kindness.
NThe Earl Of Cawdor Lieutenant General ]. R.
Crawford, brothers-in-law of the petitioner, and
Mr.. Frederick John Howard, his altbrother,
we're called to prove the terms on which he and
Lady Eleanor Cavendish had lived They stated
that he was most ndulgent husband, and that
he and his wife had lived on the most affection
ate terms
Similar testimony was given by other wit
nesses who had been servants in the house, and
it was also proved that the respondent and CO.
respondent had lived as man and wife at Nice,
where they passed under the name of MIR. and
Mrs. Graham.
we're any observations addressed to the jury by
the respondents counsel. Her mother, Lady
Clare, having died about three months since,
she is now in the enjoyment of the property left
her by her father. Its amount was not stated,
but 1t was understood that it is considerable
His Lordship, Ia charging the jury said that
very little was to be said on the case. The facts
we're not numerous, and the result could hardly
be doubted. The respondent had been wicked
enough or bad enough, to leave her husbands
affection, and had gone to live with man who
was her brotherin-law. From the Clrcum
stances under which she left her home, there
could be no doubt that they were carrying on
an adulterous Intercourse, and the only ques
ton, therefore, which remained, was as to the
damages In assessing those they should look
to all the circumstances of the case, and say
what they thought was reasonable compensa
ton, so far as money could be a compensation
for the loss the petitioner had suffered.
In considering that matter q very natural
question arose whether the husband had beer
at all to blame. They had unimpeachable eVi
dence that the petitioner and respondent haC
lived on the best of terms. He was described as
kind and indElgent husband, and there Wal
not a suggestion OF any shortcoming on his part
But if he behaved we'll what were they to think
of the conduct of Lord Cecil Gordon 1t wa
well said that the gravity Of an ohense might bC
measured by the obligations which were broken
or by the consequences which followed from ii
commission. II they applied either test to the
guilt of the correspondent 1t would not appeal
the less light or grievous They could hardly inC
any case in which the obligations which were
violated we're so numerous and so strong. o.
in which the consequences we're so painful
Here was man at the advanced period in lif,
of sixty years, himself married man with MN,
children, visiting and partaking OF the hospi
tality OF the petitioner, and receiving Kind
nesses from him, and then taking advantage o
the intimacy which belonged to near family ties
inducing the wife of his friend and relative Il
leave her home with him. Whether the motiv
was mercenary or not did not signify, the resul
was the same. So far as he (Sr j. p. Wilde
could see there was not the slightest excuse o
pallation for such conduct. There was no neg
lect on the part OF the husband--there was n
want of kindness on his part, and there was no
one circumstance which, 30 far as the respor
dent and correspondent were concerned, coul
lessen the guilt OF the gross violation and doubl
1ntIacton OF their marriage vow.
In reply TO u Juror, who lobseryed that the
had evidence before them as to the means of tn
correspondent
His Lordship said that il man did not pa
in pocket he should pay in person. The pre-
porty OF the correspondent was not the measuI
of damages. The measure of damages was Wha
aI.n kaA oriffap