Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1869-06-11

From the Louisville Courier
A Melancholy Ease Of Domestic In.
C0nge0iality.
| Eloquent and Touching Opinion from,
| Cnancriior EEoolley.
| The divorce case of Lucy Gray rs. WI
liam nj. Gray, in the Chancery Court, has
excited considerable comment in conse-
quence Of some of its peculiar features,
and the opinion rendered by Chancellor
| Woolley has given it more than usual
| prominence. The opinion is peculiar, too.
| 1t has few or none Of the dry old phrases
| common to the edicts of courts, and il
comparatively novel piece Of work. 1t
| embraces all the facts in the case, and We
! give it here entire.
LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.
"' Opinion and order re-
William, NT Cro1 manding to rules.
This case exposes and illustrates the ju.
dicial error i'll granting divorces for trivial
or underlined causes.
At the first reading Of tho voluminous
record [ thought that, contrary to my idea
of ethical rules and civil policy, I should
be forced to separate two people who had
agreed to live together by every bond
that is sanctioned by Ill laws which men
obey.
An earnest and able appeal in the written
argument by the young and worthy coun-
sci for the defendant induced q second
reading OF the record, and the case is alto
gether different from that which [ thought
it was. sec it now.
In March, 1866, a marriage was solemn
lied between two young people of good
standing in social life. The husband was
a physician, not mole than twenty-five
years old, and commanded an unusually
large practice for one of that age
Hewas remarkable for his industry, thrift,
generosity, and religious habits.
The young counsel who has defended
him SO ably in this case was his school
mate, and l lay much stress upon his earn
est statement that the defendant was a
manly fellow while at school.
The respected minister of the church of
which the defendant was member de-
clares that he was and is gentle Christian
and good citizen.
Six or eight witnesses of undoubted
character testify fully to the excellence of
the defendant as man, and to his just
conduct as a husband. Looking at him
simply through the testimony of his wit
nesses, he not only does not deserve a
shameful decree divorcing him from the
wife whom he says he still loves, but he is
an example Tor many husbands to follow
Tie plaintiff was young Girl not more
than twenty years Of age. Her father was
comfortable estate of seventy-tive or one
hundred thousand dollars. She received
| an excellent education, and all her wit
| nesses mot less than ten) describe her as
gentle, tender and loving.
The two young people married, worthy
| then, and with future which seemed pro-
pitious. The husband had the consent of
his family, and the wife more than the ap-
probation of hers, for her brother took an
active part to secure the alliance.
They had but one child that lived long
enough for the father and mother to see
their images reflected from common OBJ
| iect of mingled love.
Scarcely two years had passed before the
wife fled her bill in this court, charging
that her husband was cruel and inhuman,
and praying that the bonds by which they
| were united might be broken forever.
The husband answered, and declared
that he always loved his wife. and that he
could not be cruel to her.
| Her witnesses, not leas than ten in mum
| Der. proved that he was cruel, inhuman,
| and mean, and that she was faithful, suf-
| fering, patient, and tender.
| His witnesses, almost as Numerous, prove
| that he was affectlonate, attentive, labori-
Gus, and loving his wife above all things
and that she was Il petuient, quarrelsOme,
and insupportablo termagant.
Two of them go so far as to say that she
waved a white handkerchief from ber Win
dow to allure young men on the street
How Is this
The answer is easy. The husband was
not cruel and inhuman. The wife was not
petulent and qua1relsGme; and the story OF
| the white handkerchief should not have
been foisted by family passion into the re-
cord, because it is false.
| Had these two people been allowed to
live and love together they would still be
faithful to the VOWS they offered, which re-
ceiyed sanction higher than that given
| by human law.
All her witnesses who proved anything are
, her family, her physician, her family
| friends, or the enemies of her husbands
family.
All Of his ara of exactly the same charac-
! ter
Each family seemed to think it was Its
right and duty to govern and control plain
| # and defer dant, Or to make them hate
each other aad them separate. [ never
| knew two stronger sWearers than the broth
| er or the pialutll duu Iue UFOtueI OI bIlt
defendant.
The tribes became hostile, and these two
people, SO young. and SO bound by every
thing to make man and woman love each
other, became the objects which were used
to crafty family rivalry, hate and spite.
And now, without crime, but merely
misguided, with affections withered, vows
broken, and the future blackened, am
invoked to perpetuate this shame, and LEI
the man go marry another woman, and LET
the woman go marry another man, will
not do it.
And I have not given the only reason.
The civil law is supreme on this bench
If the Chancellor believe in other laws
which conflict with and arc superior to the
civil law, he must abandon his opinions ol
his place. THIS is place solely for human
Justice acc oretlng to human law.
/ Bot if discretion be allowed-and IL
cases of divorce the Chancellor has large
discretion-then all laws can be consulted
which elevate mankind and advance mora
j civilization. Under such circumstances
what he thinks becomes the law of tht
!; case. I have my views, and, not nov
/ wholly fettered by merely human statutes
/ r will enforce them to the honor of so