Los Angeles herald., 1891-12-02
BEAUTY And BEAST.
Countess RusselFs Unhappy
Married Life.
Her Lord and Master Was a
Veritable Brute.
The Lady Subjected to the GrOssest
Indignities Under His Roof.
Salacious Disclosures in the Divorce
Suit Now on Trial in Her Maj
.jesty's High Court OF
Justice.
Associated Press DISPATCHES,


LONDON, Dec LIN division OF her
majesty's high court of justice, before
Justice Butt, there commenced today
case (which excited much comment, par
ticularly in the higher walks of English
life. This case is the application of the
Countess Russell for a judicial separa-
tion from her husband, Earl Russell,
grandson of the great Lord John Rus
sell, on the ground of cruelty. The
trouble between the earl and his wife
has been public talk for months past.
The parties to the suit are we'll known
in society, and the allegations and
counter allegations have afforded topics
for conversation in many circles OF polite
society. The earl denies the allegations
and claims that the whole trouble is
due to his mother-in-law. Sir Charles
Russell appeared for Russell, and Sir
Edward Clark represented the countess.
The petition of the countess states
that from the time she married in Feb
ruary, 1890, until she left him, Earl
Russell habitually treated her with the
greatest he rshness and cruelty, terrify-
ing her and injuring her health. The
earl compelled her to remain until 3
O'Clock in the morning doing his ac-
counts. He also threatened her with a
revolver. Not content with abusing
and Insulting her in the privacy of their
apartments, he acted toward her in
such way that she was humiiiated be-
fore her servants.
Sir Edward Clarke opened the case
for The petitioner. The room was
crowded with a large number of per-
sous. who listened with close attention
to the proceedings. The countess, ac-
companied by her mother and sister,
was present. She and her relatives oc-
eupied seats in the back part of the
court room, seeming to desire to escape
from the observation of the crowd.
Sir Edward Clarke, in opening the
case, said the parties to the suit lived
together for only four months, owing to
the conduct of the earl; afterwards the
countess was induced to return 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 again
separated. After this last separation
the earl wrote affectionately to the
countess and implored her to return to
him. The countess was persuaded
against her better judgment and re-
turned to her husband, but his affec-
tionate treatment was of short duration.
He again used personal violence against
her and made her life miserable. The
countess lost all hope of living happily
with her husband, and again she left
him. Prior to the separation the mat
ter of the cOuntess's support was talked
over, and the earl agreed to allow her
ESQ month for her expenses. This
agreement the earl violated. He paid
the first monthly allowance, but after
that the countess received nothing from
him except checks for the amount prom
ised, which checks when presented at
the bank were returned dishonored.
In presenting the case for the count
ess, Sir Edward Clarke stated that
when the countess married, she had
possessed portion of 100000. This
money, however, had nothing to do with
her troubles. When the countess was
suffering from an attack of influenza,
the earl, Sir Edward declared, COM
PEELED the countess to accompany him
on reckless drives in inclement weather,
much to her injury. The earl made it
practice to leave her room and go and
stay with a man named Roberts. who
was living in the house. He made the
countess go to the servants closets to see
if they were provided with the proper
requisites.
AS evidence of the estimation in
stated that he often said he would like
Ia, ont nf ha ha,1oa i,,sn
coffin.
Referring to the earl's accounts, Sir
Edward said he would compel the
countess to arise after she had retired,
and go down stairs to fix them up. He
would then abuse her in violent terms.
On more than one occasion he threw
her to the floor and commanded her not
to move until he returned and gave her
permission.
After denying that his client was at
present, or ever had been afflicted with
mysteries, he stated that the man
Roberts was mathematical master of
school at Bath. A serious suggestion
against Earl Russell was involved in bis !.
alleged relations with Roberts, Sir
Edward declared, and his wife could not
feel otherwise than outraged and dis
brutal nature of the earl, Sir Edward
cited instances how he used to drag cats
about with strings around their necks.
More than once he amused himself by
throwing cat at the ceiling until he
nearly killed the poor beast. The
countess demonstrated with the earl
against this cruelty, whereupon the lat
ter said 81 will lick you into shape if
you don't mind"
When the countess objected to Rob-
erts' presence in the house, the earl told
her to 60 to the devil.
Continuing, Sir Edward said the earl
was much upset by the prospect OF the
countess not having child. He abused
her for this, and called her "beastly
barren woman"
Early in May the earl and countess