The evening world., 1891-12-01
A COUNTESS SEEKS DIVORCE.
Earl Russell in an English Court,
. Charged with Cruelty.
Remarkable Allegations Made on
tho Plaintiffs Side.
tBY ASSOCIATED PRESS. !

tBH ASSOCIATED PRESS.
LONDON, Dec. LIN the Divorce Division OF
Her MaJesty's High Court Of Justice, before
Mr. Justice Butt, there was commenced to-
day case which has excited much comment,
particularly in the higher walks OF English
life. This case is the application Of Countess
Russell for q judicial separation from her hus-
band, Earl Russell, the grandson of the great
Lord John Russell, on the ground OF cruelty.
The parties to the suit nre well known In
society, and the allegations and counter
allegations have Afforded topics for conversa-
tion in many circles OF polite society.
John Francis Stanley Russell, Earl Russell
and viscount Amberley, was born Aug. 12,
1865, and Is, therefore, only about twenty
six years old. lie succeeded to the earldom
on the death OF his grandfather, John, the
first Earl Russell.
on Feb. o, 1890, the Earl married Mabel,
daughter OF the late Sir Claude Scott, and a
very short time Afterwards the wife left her
husband, alleging that he was cruel to her.
While the Earl was at college at oxford he
was noted for his eccentric theological and
political views, and after his marriage his
actions were such that the Countess believed
him to be insane and was in fear Of her life.
The Earl denies each and every one OF the
allegations made by his wife and claims that
the whole trouble is due to his mother-in-
law.
Sir charles Russell appeared for the Earl,
and Sir Edward Clarke, the Solicitor-General,
represented the Countess
The petition OF the Countess states that
from the time she married, In February, 1890,
until she left him, Earl Russell habitually
treated her with great harshness and cruelty,
terrifying her and injuring her health.
The Earl compelled her to remain until or
3 o'clock In the morning doing his accounts.
When she was unable to complete them he
called her useless, uneducated woman, ana
an ungrateful devil. He also threatened her
with revolver.
Not content with abusing and insulting her
in the privacy Of their apartments he acted
towards her in such way that she was
Inundated before her servants.
Sir Edward Clarke, for the petitioner, IN
opening the case to-day said that the parties
months owing to the conduct OF the Earl.
Afterwards the Countess was induced to re-
turn TO her husband and they resumed their
former marital relations. This continued but
a short time, however, when the Countess
found the Earls actions intolerable and they
again sepai ated.
After the last separation the Earl wrote
af1ectionately to the Countess and Implored
her to return to him. The Countess was per-
suaded against her better judgment and re-
turned to her husband. But his afrectionate
treatment OF her was Of short duration. He
again used personal violence against her and
made her life miserable.
once he drove her from bed ana she tainted
upon the floor, when she came to she dragged
herself to the room OF her nurse and spent
the remainder OF the night there. The Earl
sought her in this room, but she threatened
to throw herself from the window II no
entered.
The Countess lost all hope OF living happily
with her husband and she again left him.
Prior to the separation the matter OF the
Countess's support was talked over, and the
Earl agreed to allow her $50 month for her
expenses
the first monthly allowance, but after that
the Countess received nothing from him ex-
cept checks for the amount promised, which
checks when presented at the bank were re-
turned dshonored.
When Sir Edward had concluded his ad-
dress, he called Us the first witness the
Countess Russell.
She arose from her seat in the rear OF the
room and made her way to the witness-boS.
Sir Edward first asked regarding the pres
ence of one Roberts In the house and the
Earl's spending considerable time with him.
The Countess stated, in reply, that she had
demonstrated with the Earl on this account
She said that the Earl was more unkind to
her when Roberts was in the house.
Replying to other questions, the Countess
said the Earl lfad told her that he kept a
loaded pistol convenient and that he would
shoot her II she annoyed him.
Upon the conclusion OF the direct examina-
tion by Sir Edward Clarke the witness was
cross-eXamined by Sir Charles Russell. lie
opened by asking the Countess II she meant
to make any imputation against her husband
or Roberts.
The witness replied with decision: "Yes."
THIS answer, which was given with snap
and vim, created a sensation in the court
room.
The witness then added that she had never
made direct charge against either the Earl
or Rohartu Tho nnuntaSa o6mtttad ,haf cho