The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1889-11-07
REMARKS OF JUDGE HARTMAN.

REMARKS OF JUDGE HARTMAN.
will not attempt at this late hour to
make a speech. But in the remarks Just
made my mind was taken back to a case
that was heard and determined in the
Supreme Court of this State in 1885.
might shift the obligation to the Repor
ter of the decision of the Supreme Court;
trust he W II not steal the copyright,
because it is mine, The case never hav-
ing been reported, may prove of interest;
probably none of my brethren have heard
OF it, unless Brother Roberts remembers
it. 1t was the divorce case Of Salina E.
Ansley Us. John D. Ansley. The Court
consisted of Charles K, Williams, Chief
Judge, Stephen Royce Samuel s. Phelps
and John Mattocks, Assistant Judges.
The petition for divorce stated that the
petitioner, Mrs. Ansley, was married in
1895 at Charleston, s. c., and they lived
in the due observance, etc., until 1927,
when her husband, after severe illtreat-
ment of her, deserted her and made no
provision for her support. The case was
entered at the January term 1888, and
was continued under an order of publ.
cation, the petitionee, Ansley, then liv.
ing 10 Michigan. The order was COM
piled with, and at the following term,
1884, Rodney G. Royce appeared for the
petitioner and Gordon Newell, of Pitts
ford, appeared for the petitionee. The
case was continued for another term
until February, 1885, and at that time
the Court, as | say, was composed of gen
tlemen: named. . Mr.. Ansley filled his
answer, in which he denied the allega-
tons; the proof was that the lady wal
born in Charleston, s, c., and there
lived, there they we're married, and lived
their married life Of a few years; tha
Ansley's conduct was outrageous to her
that she could not live in the house with
him and went off, and after floating
around, came to Rutland and lived Their
three or four years, bringing her petit
ton to this Court. The cause ALLEGED
was desertion and neglect to support
The evidence tending to show his i'll
treatment was sach as they could picl
up in Charleston, and those who knew
most about it were the slaves in the fam
lily; their evidence was not taken be
cause, as Mr.. Royce told the Court, sucl
testimony was not admissible in Soutl
Carolina, 80 they picked up such as the,
could from neighbors, whose evidenc
bcuueu W ouOW bhdb buo COulu not bLh0t
Il and went away. Mr. Newell, in hi
argument, urged that while the petition
set up dissertation, in point of fact il wa
she who deserted him. The Court tool
the case into consinderation, and came il
to give their opinions Seridtim. First
Chief Judge Williams led off in one o
his elegantly delivered opinions-the,
were not written, but delivered oralll
then. He took the ground and state
the law of the case to be that II a womal
in South Carolina had husband VIII
behaved so outrageously to his wife tina
che could not live with him, that sh
had the right to go away, and it wa
his duty TO go where she was, that /
she came TO Vermont IL was his duty +
come where she was, and take care O
her. AS he had not done that, he ha
deserted her in Vermont, for she hal
lived there three years. Everybody
sympathies with the lady, but some O
the bar had doubts in their minds as t
the soundness Of the legal proposition
set forth.
Following the Chief Judge came Judg
Royce, Ia one Of those clean-cut opin
ions for which he was so celebrated
fully agreeing to the decision announced
Then followed dissenting opinion b
Judge Samuel s. Phelps, that great ma
that man Of grand intellect. He sal
that while bis sympathies were with th
lady, be could not coDscientiOusIy eyre
with his associates. Judge Mat ock