The native Virginian. [volume] (Orange Court House, Va.) 1867-187?, 1869-06-18

The divorce case of Lucy Gray VS..
William NJ. Gray, in the ChanceIy
Court, has excited considerable COIN
ment in consequence OF some of its pc
cul ar features, and the opinion rem
dered 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 edets of courts, and is comparative
ly a novel piece of work. IT, embraces
all the facts in the case, and we give 1t
here entire
LOUISVILLE cHANcERY COURT.
Lucy Gray Opinion and order re-
-, vs.. manding to rules.
This case exposes and illustrates the
judicial error in granting divorces for
trivial OF underlined causes.
At the first reading of the volumin-
Gus record thought that, contrary to
my idea OF ethical rules and civil policy,
| should be forced to separate two peo-
pie who had agre ed to live together by
every bond that IS sanctioned by all
laws which men obey.
An earnest and able appeal in the
written argument by the young and
worthy counsel for the defendant in
duced Il second reading of the record,
and the case is altogether different from
tnat which | thought it was. l see it
now.
In March 1865 marriage was solem-
nized between two young people of good
standing in social life. The husband
was physician, not more than twen-
ty-five years old, and commanded an
unusually large practice fol one of that
age.-
He was 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 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 a gentle
Christian, and good citizen.
Six or eight witnesses of undoubted
character testify fully to 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 de-
serve shameful decree divorcing him
from the wife whom he says he still
loves. but he is an example for many
husbands to follow.
The plaintiff was a young girl not
more than twenty years of age. Her
father was gentleman in social rank,
and possessing comfortable estate OF
seventy-tive or one hundred thousand
dollars. She received an excellent ed
ucation, and all her witnesses (net less
than ten) described her as gentle, tell
der, and loving.
The two young people married, wor-
| thy then, and with future which SEEM
| ed propitious. The husband had the
consent of his family, and the wife more
than the appreciation 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 a
common object OF mingled love.
Scarcely two years had passed before
the wife filed her bill in this court charg-
ing that her husband was cruel and in
human, and praying that the bonds by
which they were united might be brok-
en- forever.
The husband answered, and declared
that he always loved his wife, and that
he could not be cruel to 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 az numerous.
| prove that he was atfeelionate, atten-
tive, laborious, and loving his wife
above all things; and that she was a
patulent, quarrelsome, and insupporta-
| BILE termagant.
Two of them go so far as to say that
| she waved white handkerchief from
her window 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 petuent and quarrelsome; and
the story of the white handkerchief
should not have been foisted by family
passion into the record, because it is
| false.
Had these two people been allowed to
! live and love together they wodld still
be faithful to the VOWS they offered,
which received sanction higher than
that given by human law.
All her witnesses who prove anything
are her family, her physician, her iami-
| " friends. or the enemies OF her htIs-
bands family,
All of his are of exactly the same
character.
Each family seemed to think It was
its right and duty to govern and con.
troll plaintiff and defendant, or to make
them hate each other and then separ
ot 1 uavar l-Onw two gtrOnUar swear