The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1890-12-05
A DIVORCE CASE DISCUSSED
JUDGMENT or LOuDoUN CIR
CUT COURT REVERSED.

In the Supreme Court OF Appeals ycs'ei-
day the decision OF the lower court was re- G
versed in the cause Of Hampton versus
Hampton. The cause came from the circuit
Cont of l.oudoun county, and Judge Faunt- 9
leroy delivered the opinion, Judge Lewis
dissenting. The opinion states that MIS- /
Monemia r. Hampton, wife OF Jonah NICK
OILS Hampton, represents that she Is assrieN-
al NV q decree of the Circuit Court OF Lou >
doun comfy rendered on the 18Th oi Octo- !
her. 1850. in which Jonah n Hampton -
complainant and she. the petuoner' - oe q
PENDANT. The bill charged uniaithi ,.
40 marriage vows by the wife win D.. r Idls
~ his brother, and the Circuit z
Iomri made the decree that the
charge against the defendant inaoS !
IN he bin was fully Proved ana
ordered that the marriage between Jonah
n. and Monemia +. Hampton tnee stochp
be dissolved; that all her rights anu nue. 4
est In the property, real ana peIsonn' I
Jonah y. Hampton, cease; ana inat hc '' q
entitled to the custody OF his chiiu'
LETTER. d
with the bill letter puTporting TO have
.an,,,ed the charge in the bill was hite'
- tho testimony OF the complaint
s,o,hcr and others was taken % prove lne
admission OF the defendants CRIME WIN t'o
hrother. The testimony ana eAplaha'iOhS
Of the defendants wife were e%ciuueu, anu
,s the court expressed no opinion anu az /
legged no reason specially the licsuin :
.s,La, ,he decision of the Court was IN ,
great measure influenced 10y the let'er anu
alleged admissions. These shouiu H"'' ,
been excluded under the law' ,.-o. ,.u,,,,,, Il
Section 22O0 page bl' Code IN'o' sun d
snit shall be Instituted and conducted -
other suits IN Cquliy, except ln"' IN ".'t Z
shaII not be taken for confessed, an" Il
whether defendant answered or mol, tlo ,
canse shall be heard independently ot Inc
admission Of either party in the proceed
ings or otherwise" ...,.i.o,l d
(. Minors Institute. 2J6' says tnat il y an i
established maxim that divorce - never !
IN he decreed for any cause upon the con
fession OF the parties merely Nllgoul "e ~
iary prOofs, experience having SHOWN tIat ,
snch n practice is productive OF coilusioh
and other hagitiOus frauds.
ANSWER.
rso dofeudant's wife answered the BILL
~ ,esronding 10 it's charges utterly de- :
,;od ,h5rp. After narrating what did Oc-
rnr and how her husband had deliberately
and systematically practiced upon heI holVs
and her fears by persuasi0ns, threats anu
nronises, 10 iuyeigle and drive her lhVo ~
alleged confession, the answer says Ic
was the stronger and she the WeakoI parry
"A ]
so-called admission thus eNtorled from me-
,vouId be used against her 10 accomplish
ha, min and disgrace. lie hrst Invested
her ~ All her prOperty-rights ana placed MS
own beyOnd reach, and then tnreateheu SCI
aration' and loss Of her only child, winch ne
executed by taking possession OF nun anu
sending her 10 her Iathers anu tuIoMins
her out upon the woFIh neipiess' i'"'
ished and disgraced.' r.A
The bill shows no specific act OF unialth-
hIlness. neither time, place or cFcuhi-
stauee and there Is nothing IN Tue Nal'-
mony of the cOmplanants own Wlthesse' ar
10 any such act. Even his three negro VII
nesses Zone Of whom. servant boy' we {
proved by respectable citizens OF me heish-
borhOod 10 be utterly unworthy OF pellei on
oath: and another, negro woman, VIZ"
had been discharged from service by the uc-
fendant: and the third. negro woman VINO
with her husband. had been long years DC
fore i'm the service Of the defendant, ana
who is not corrobOraied by her DusDahu)
testify only 10 certain acts Of doubtful pro
prety, which, they say, occurred ih"n'
wears prior to their testiiying IN Inc suii
and which with the alleged mention @: one
person By one OF them after the lapse Of
wear they never mentioned or femaikcu
upon in all that time, nor until druiniheu
up by the cOmplainants for the purpose OF
the suit.
WITNESSES.
The witnesses Of the complainant except Z
the three negrOes) testified of the defendant
as an amiabe, industrious, thflity WIG,
kind and anectiOnate 10 her husband ana
mindful of mis- interests. and 10 is remark
able in all the many years OF her residence
in that household, including j. Frank
Hampton, where her husband placed her.
no breath of suspicion went out against her
that could reach the ears or the appIehen-
sions of her husband, or OF the numerous
relatives and visitors Of the FAMILY. LA-
cepting this dab ,lical charge made against
the defendant by the person in the sem
blance of a man, who had promised 10 love
and cherish. TO shield aud protect her' tLe
whole records shows that she was deli
cate, true, and trusting wife.
IL il fortunate, too. tor the defendant
wife and loving mOther-whose mouth Is
closed against the grieNous charges maze
by the husband and his negro witnesses
and who is debarred by "A rule OF law lr0m ,
giving las she has done in her sworn an
swer) a full and satisfactory explanation
of the es pressiOns and The letter wrung
from her in the calamity OF her situation,
and dictated by the cunning promises ana
brutal threats and coercion OF ner acoustr
that the record shows the motive and the
manner of the appellee, ). Nick Hampton
PROPERTY.
n deed dated March 10, 1886, he conveys to
his brother all interest in tract OF land,
his wife, the defendant, uniting IN the deed
upon the promise that he had IN view the
purchase of q home in Mecklenburg county,
and intended TO take his family there TO re-
side. ~
James NJ. Stocks swears that on the 18th
of March. 1886, j. Nick Hampton told him
that Monenia aud his brother Frank had
been too intimate; that day or two SUD
sequently ne took his sister down 10 her
husbands home, at her fathers direction
and at her request; that on the way doWh
they met with j. Nick Hampton, and Mo
nenia called 10 Nick and asked him "Nhy
ne didr't come after herY and he said:
.Hai hal Eve got that letter now. l
carried it TO Lees6urg yesterday and showed
IL TO several and they all told me could
get a divorce right away"
The appellee admitted 10 MIR. Stocks ana
20 James ID. Stocks and TO other witnesses
I'm tha record that he had used unfair means;
had undermined her 10 get her TO confess
and crimlpate Frank Hampton. and yet the
record shows that he did not believe his own
story He remained on friendly and brother
ly terms with Frank Hampton; visited him
worked with him every day for months, and
never did break with him until all his efforts
and themes had failed 10 get him TO crlm'-
nate his wife and cOnspire with him TO OBJ
tain the divorce.
SUIT.
He brought this suit September 80, 1887,
and he has maintained 1t upon the evidence Z
of negro servants. with some OF whom he ,
s.bunked," smoked. drank, slept and as
ISOLATED. One OF them testified 10 having
seen through a key-hole Frank Hampton m
the room, another from the back yard
through the second story window; that she
Dut her arms around him. Another that Z
an going up 10 the garnet 10 ,
pe, lard in the summer (where il
was proved the lard was not kepD,
she saw Frank Hampton get up from
the foot OF the bed, where he had been sit
ting, and Mrs. Hampton's clothes dlsord- {
cred, who had been nursing her sick baby; +;
and the boy Blue that he had seen her ut
ting i'm his lap: and all this, il true, as far
back as 1880 1881, and OF which they never
spoke until called up by j. W. Hampton 70 i
..attfv In the suif in iS<r =