Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1869-06-30

Oaco 414O4 4uouCo anu IOcliJ VI
the Bench.
The divorce case Of Lucy Gray vs.
William ~ Gray in the Chancery
Court, has excited considerable com
ment in consequence Of some OF ils
peculiar features, and the opinion OF
Chancellor Woolley has given il more
than usual prominence. The opinion
is peculiar, too. II has few or none
of the dry old phrases common TO the
edicts Of courts, and is comparatively
a novel piece Of work. Il embraces
all the facts 10 the case, and we give
il entire
LOUISVILLE cHAN0ERY COURT.
Lucy Gray VS.. William NJ Gray
Opinion and order remanding TO the
rules-This case exposes aud illus
trates the judicial error in granting
divorces for trivial or underlined causes.
At the first reading Of the volumi-
nous record / thought that, contrary
10 my idea Of ethical rules and civil
policy, should be forced 10 separate
two people who had agreed 10 live
together by every bond that Is sane
toned by al laws which men obey.
An earnest and worthy counsel for
the defendant induced second read
ing OF the record, and the case Is alto
geiher different from that which ]
Thought il was ! see il now.
In March, 1866. marriage was
solemnized between two young people
of good standing in social life. The
husband was a physician, not more
than twenty years old, and com
manded an unusually large practice
for one of that age.
lie was remarkable for industry,
thrift, generosity and religious habits.
The young counsel. who has defend
ed him so ably in this case, was bis
schoolmate, and lay much stress
upon his earnest statement that the
defendant was a manly fellow while
at school.
The respected minister Of the church
Of which the defendant was a member,
declares that he was and is q gentle
Christian and good citizen.
Six OF eight witnesses of undoubfed
testify fully 10 the excellence
OF the defendant as a man, and TO his
Just conduct as a husband Looking
at him simply through the testimony
of his witnesses, he not only does not
deserve q shameful decree divorcing
him from the wife whom he SAYS be
still loves, but he is an example Tor
many husbands 10 follow.
The plaintiff was young girl not
more than twenty years OF age. Her
father was a gentleman in social rank,
and possessing comfortable estate
of seveuiy-five or one hundred thou
sand dollars. She received an excel
lent education, and all her witnesses,
not less than ten, describe her as gen
lie. tender and loving
The two young people married,
worthy then, and with future which
seemed propitious. The husband had
the consent OF his family, and the wife
more than the appreciation Of hers,
Tor her brother took an active part 10
secure the alliance
They had hu, one child that lived
long enough for the father and mother
TO see their image reflected from a
common object Of mingled love.
Scarcely two years had passed
before the wife flied her bill IN this
couri, charging that her husband was
cruel and inhuman, and praying that
the bonds by which they were united
might b. broken forever.
f'hchusband answered. and declared
that be always loved his wife, and that
he could not be cruel 20 her.
Her witnesses, not less than ten in
number, prove that he was cruel, in
human and mean. and that she was
faithful suffering, patient and tender
His witnesses, almost as numerous,
prove that be was aifeotionaie, atien-
live, laborious. and loving bis wife
above al things; aud that she was a
peiulant, Quarrelsome and insupporia
Die tcrmarant.
Two Of them 20 SO far rs 10 say that
she waved a white handkerchief from
her window 10 allure young men on
the sir-ct
How Is this
The answer is easy. The husband
- "a ....s1 - -,mt.rsrar W'ha
wife was mol petulantand Quarrelsomo,
and the story OF the white handker
chief should not have been foi-ted by
family passion into the record, because
IL is false.
Had these two people been allowed
% live and love together, they would
siili be faiihful 10 Tho VOWS they oi.
fercd. which received a sanction high
er than that given by human law
All her witnesses who prove any
thing are her family, her physician,
her family friends. or the enemies OF
her husbands iumily
All uf his arc OF exactly The same
character
Eauh family seemed 90 think il was
It's right aud duiy 10 govern and con-
troll plaintiff and defendant, or % make
them haie each other and separate
never knew two stronger swearcrs
than the brother Of the plaintiff and
the brother OF the defendant
The tribes became hostile. and these
two people, 50 young. and 80 bound
by everythingtomake mar and voman
love each other, became the objects
Which were r~ed 10 crafty family
rivalry, hate and spite.
And now. without crime, but merely
misguided, with affections wiihere0.
VOWS broIen. aud the future Llaokonod,
am invoked 20 perpcfuate this shame
ansaiet the man 70 marry another
woman. and let the w0wsn 20 marry
smother man. ! viii not Do IT,
And ] have not gwen the ony
rcason.
The civil law is supreme on tins
bench. lfthe Chancellor believe IN
other laws which conflict with and are
superior 20 the civil Law, he must