National Republican., 1883-03-07
Mrs. LATnAM,s nAsrr.
What an English Judge Does Not Com
slider Grounds for Divorce.

slider Grounds for Divorce.
The patient ghiseldnis is still without honor
in England. Sir James Harden, in the pro-
bate and divorce court at London, has Just
dismissed tho petition for a judicial separa-
ii on from, her husband of Mrs Latham on the
ground that she was in too much of hurry
to escape from husband who merely beat her,
tore off her clothes, threw her down, reviled
her wiped his hoes on her mantle, sat up all
night to burn her clothes, cut Off one Of
her eyebrows, and shaved one side of her
head. Sir James was astonishcd at the wo-
mans impetuosity and petulance and bade
her wait till her husband should put her in
danger of serious injury in life and limb"
IL appears "the parties were married at st.
Thomas's church, New York, in March, 1882.
They resided there to May following, when
they left for Englt / in the Assyrian Mon
arch, and from til vent on to Paris Dur
ing their stay in ! York, in London, and
in Paris, the pet ter alleges that her hus-
band treated her IL he most disgraceful man
ner. At the time Of her marriage she was 80
and her husband was 49, He was q widower.
lie was literary man, and was writing
play. A month after the marriage her hus-
band accused her of attracting tho attention
of people in the street He threatened to
throw her in the gutter. lie at tho same
time tore off her clothes and called her very
bad names. He took all the money sho had,
and during the whole time of their co.
habitation she had no money. On ono
occasion in New York he tore up her
mantle and wiped his shoes with il. He
also tore her hat into shrcds, and cut the
hair off from one side of her head. He
said 1t made her look as if she had inst
come out of Jail. On tho passage homo he
would not let her out of the cabin. He said
that she could not be trusted. While they
were at the Cannon Street hotel he would not
allow tho windows to be open. While in
Paris subsequently his conduct was the same.
He tore her wedding ring OF her finger and u
portion Of the flesh came with il. Ho also
cut oil ono of her eyebrows, and sat up q
whole night burning her clothes. All this he
did against her will He also banged her hat
down on her face and caused her lip TO swell (;
threw fish and cold ham in her face; he
seized her by the throat he tore several ar
ticles of her clothing; ho moro than once spat
in her face; he threw a pillow at her. On
one occasion he smashed her ivory hair brush,
and oh another her ivory glove stretchers.
In Paris he accused her of being familiar in
her conversation with o waiter to whom she
was only interpreting their orders for dinner,
and in London he took her against her will to
two music halls. He blew cigar smoke in her
face. On tho twenty-sixth of July she left
her husband In consequence of his ill-treat-
ment. At the time sho left her husband was
asleep. In cross-examination the petitioner
stated that on their way home from Paris she
and her husband agreed to let bygones be by
cones. Members of the family were called,
who spoke as to the petitioners lip being
swollen and rs to their emacated appearance.
On the conclusion of the petitioners case. the
respondent went into the witness box and
gave general denial to the principal charges
brought against him. Very soon aftor the
marriage differences arose between them, but
they were of trifling nature. He observed
that his wife had weakness for trying to at
tract the attention of gentlemen. lie remon-
strated with her on the subject. He denied
all the acts of violence alleged against him.
He had always been anxious that his wife
should return TO him, and he was ready to re-
ceive her now. The servant of the house
where they lodged after their return from
Paris was called, and stated that she always
considered them most loving couple She
thought them newly married. Sir James
Hannah said that what struck him was that
after SO short period of cohabitation the lady
should come and ask for judicial separation.
Such could not be granted unless upon the
strongest evidence that the wife was in dan
ger of being injured in life and limb. Such
evidence did not exist in this case. He must,
at the same time, say that Mr.. Latham had
given away to the mast unjustifable jealousy.