The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1877-06-03
SINGULAR DIVORCE CASE
u FFN fRk mr. SIIr nv mr. cT,n
STONES BufLER ar NV IRDIN
n" accused Fhy-icinn-A Divorce Gr,nt.,.
No"""nt Of his Alleged Guilt Ills Su1.a.
pucnt Acquittni In u suit fo, D,,,.,. '

|
High Court of Justice Probate bi...
| and Admiralty Division May a. I.'..r.' ~,
| ,tisht Hon; thr President and a common me- 'He
| flrd AL Field and Alollnit Jury
Dr. Spnks, q. C.. AMI Mr.. % A MiiIl.,,,.,
| tho correspondent w. '' nc
| the service Of Mr.. W. T.. Glnl-f,un n,.,r'Iqi n
respondent in August 1870. and tlr, i,.' ,ie
ses1ier AT nawardrh IN flnt~hirc untn Ina
| spring OF 1874. when the petitioner G.vii',, ~
| tained an appointment as no--ru,,',r ' ~, ~,
National Debt ONE. they came g. i'1n'l.nn '1la
| llay. 1876, Information AIMED the u'ttinl
| which confirmed the sl-ri.inns H. b,.ip,t
| some time entertained OF his vito. niniitv ,,I
he taxed her with having brrn curry nt W., i,,n
tory during the period OF their r,sil.,,'a,,
lnntshirc with the correspond. nj wiz III
mrdIral man IN practice at llawarirn She i,
ilrsi denied but aierward admitted II w,. Az
legged, the truth vi the charge. aud tho t,n.
separated from her and instituted his suit t,r
uiNorgc ny rcnson OF her nduitory claiming
also damages. laid at 1000. against tha ,os
respondent Immediately after service nf t,,
CITATION upon him, the Correspondent ari,oar'I
ana He'd an answer denying the chur,..' IA, I'M,
petition. The respondent at first lodi nn
step to defend herself. but after tune sme
applied i9r and obtained leave 10 appear and
sle then illcd nm answer In which sheni.l ,a-
nlrd the charge IN the petition. the sum. -n-
ll'itor representing both her and the co.rc-
tDpndcht III the suit. When the case was about
a. com" on Tor trial application WIS uadr ~
the Court on behalf OF the cor 'spondoni uat
me issues might be- severed amt trlrd separate.
~ on Inc ground that the alleged confessions 4
ih' respondent wore calr 1lat"d 10 prejudice. =
case II tho charges against the on and rs
other were tried together. The npplicutiIn WA.
uioW'd Inc case as against the rcspond"nt
wa. heard before the Court Itself in Inc LAST
hittnss In support OF the charge against hrr
q number OF letters written by her 10 her hus-
band were produced, and in those she repent 4
the confessions which the petitioner dcpos 4
sne made orally 10 him Of her guilt ana ira.
plOred his iurgiyeno ~. Proof Of like con 49,.
sipns by her 10 the petitioners sister WIS ui.1
induced, ana a niece OF tun petitioner. Whui
lived with him and the respondent AT lIaV4rIDn.
depOsed t. the existence of "a suspicious DO. l..
macy between the respondent and correspond.
cnt, ana To having scrn them ON particular
evening IN May. 1873. III circumstAncc- winch
assuming the truth of the statement could
leave no doubt rs to tho chara ter of dion MI.
macy. On the other hand. the respond'ni,l1.
Mod on Oath that any criminal intimacy ItI
ever sui sisted between her and the co-t,-pYnI-
cnt, ana declared that she only intended g. con.
Nvy by her confessions that he had on ono os. A.
sion ntcd with nnpropricty toward her. Tho
Court however. came " the conclusion that ina
case hai h'cn established against her and prJ-
nOunrDd a decree Uist.
To-day the issues raised in the case between
the petitioner and The correspondent oHnr ON
for trial before the President ami u common
Jury. The evidence given On behalf ol the poti-
toner on the hearing last ~itungs save. tho rs.
-ppndrnts confessions. which could not be- adj
mltted against Tn" cores pOnd,nt. was rrlrnt. 4
and letters written by the Correspondent 10 tnS
petitioner Just previous 10 The institution oi tao
SUIT. ana by his solicitor Ia the petitioners
solicitor nilrr the fling of the petition. wor,
produced. In his own letters th'ru r,-ppndrut
admitting that thnrr had h'"n impruI.ns.s'
qtlrrcd 10 max" all the reparatiun M has power
Tor III m, uud pressed the petitioner to settle Ne
matter. The letter Of his solicitor expressing
Willingness "a accept serNic" of the citation
stated that tho correspondent would facilitate IA
every way IN his power the petitioner r divorce;
hut when the citation WIS served. and II Wl5
found that the petition contained a claim inr
damages the correspondents solicitor then
wrote To say that he should defend the suit
On the other hand DIR. Moiiait. who stated tlrt
no WIS 81 years oil axe. AMI had been IN pratt q
ils a physician for 40 years, denied ON oath tiat
b" had ever been guilty OF adultery with tho
respondent, ana that when writing the luttrri
above referred 10 lie was under the iInIr'~, A
that the charge mnde 10y the petitioner related
Ia some scandal between his son. since dead,
and the rcSpOnient at Hawaricn IN is12 and
ne Explained That the " 1mprud"nre tp VIM
ne confessed was attending alone on the ri-
7lohdrni. when, uecOrdinEtp the practlrc oi tho
profession. another female should have been
present. Stress WITS laid on the ambiguous
character pi the letters and especially On mo
letter written ~ his solicitor after ii~tlu lions.
ana WHch the co-rrsu Ondent was aWurr that no
adultery was charged, not against his deceased
son. bat against himself hOtn hV counsel iur $40
petitioner and TIA" learned President in sun-
nin- NJ Tie cnsc: hut the Jury, after deliberate
lnE Tor htout "A qunrt'r OF an hour. found ~
their verdict that the cores pondent had nN
been guilty of adultery with the respondent