The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1877-03-18
DIKORCE Nv HT0H LIE.
Trouble In n Noble English Famiiy-viscount
Asbbrook's Testimony.

On Fob. %. the case of Viscount Ashhrook
against Emily, Niscountoss AshbrOok. and Capt
Hugh Baltic lnnw ,dcad). cam" up IN the
divorce Court IN" Nis"ount pNi TONED tor u
divorce on the ground of the adultery Of his
Wifc with the correspondent Answers were
filed denying the cnnrgcs and the petitioner
WIS accused Of cruelty, but thcrn was not the
slightest atumpt made To substantial the
allegation. 1t should he stated that after her
separation from her husband Lady Ashbrook
became The mother of "a child. who Is now dead
Had not this been the cnsc. no doubt more in
terest would have attached To the matter. ~
proceedings had bscn Instituted und r. tho
Legitimacy Declaration act The suit was
really undofcndcd, and lasted little over nall an
hour.
In 1850 he made tic a"uuHinianre Ot Ludy AZ h
brook. then Miss Arlington. who was residing
them which resulted in their bHns married N
May. 1865. mt Ieaningiun. For two yours the
marriage was Kept secret from his inincr who
was then alive, but when he became aware Oi II
it met with his appreciation. aud both he and
tho family treated Lady Ashhrook with cord-
atty. Up To- the year 1872 he lived com,
furtaby with his wife,, and he hat
no complaint TO make Of her conduct At
tho end OF that yeur. relntive cuinc 10 frsid
ut Durrow, and Lady Ashbrnok became on
terms of intimacy with him. and from thnt time
witness noticed that hor demeunOr toward him
was changed. Shr appeared TO br dis'ont'nted
about mOnry mnitera, and wanted house in
london From time Ia time witness rcmOn-
strHtrd with his wife on her intimacy with the
gentleman alludcdto. From the beginning he
faithful with that person, but b" was oi opinion
that the intimacy made hnr discontinued. In
March 1873. Sir Spon cr Robins n, "a relatlvn,
endcaVorod to mt an "nI t. ia" dlsput ~ and .
memorandum of agreement WAS drawn up, and
among other things agreed on was thut Lady
AshhrOOk should give up the urluuintan'rSlitD
of the gentleman in question. Alter ths. for u
tlne matt'r won't on snonlhly; anu ti1 lgsl
9cas9n th' g ntinmnn referred to was at the
house in January. ls1i
During the season Of 1874 Witness was in Lon
don. whore he made the a'puainttn go of Mr..
Baltic. the correspondent. He was a young
man. a wdower. amt WIS invited by witn'7 Ia
have soma shooting al DurroY. He stayed about
a fortnight but there was nothing that with SIS
had tO complain ~ IN his con lult with his VIE.
IN December witness cam" 10 town with Iudv
A-hhrOOk. AMI ols'nls were taken IN Han
Moon street. Mr.. Eu4llle WIS n the habit OF
call M. though hc one N.scOunil wis unaWdr'
OF it ut the time. H. had no suspicion Of his
Wits intimacy with HIM. In June il was
brought 10 his knowlodg. that his vile Was
rnceinie and he fot sur that the child wis not
his. and on the lgth NJ that month he lefi iuf
VI ,on street. and had no further eommunig alton
with his wife. H. had read the answer. IL was
not true thnt he had eyer ~trus * his wife.
Emily Franklin stated that sue was in the ser-
vre OF the respondent at & Hall Moon street.
Picradilly. The correspond, mt used 70 come
and Wis L hcr Lady AslhrOuk WIS in the habit
OF going t. Brighton. and MIR Baltic followed
her. ON the 9th oi July. 1875. Lady Ashbro)k
and Baltic went 90 Filcy in Yorkshire, and there
stopped at tho Pleasant Hotel. unl stayed there
some time. They hal meals together. md the
respondent suited that the correspondent was
Mrs. Fiirlow. chambormald at the Pleasant
Hotel Fiiry. gave further evidence Of more
This was ali tho testimony adluced. and Sir
james Hunncn pointed out that tine respondent'-
counsel had reiraincd from putting du stons
Tho lurv nt once found that tho petitioner had
proved his ease. AMI Sr james Hann'n granted
decree ni7 ~ prayed tho wife 10 have her
f. taa. TO D. l.a.HHH .NaaH