The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1891-12-12
The Private Life of the Unhappy
Pair Held Up to the Public
Gaze.
The Earl Still Subject to Violence at
the Hands of the Rowdy
Element.


russell separation case SHOWS no III
least sign of abatement. When TIT
court opened this morning the room wa.
densely packed with an eager audience
Sir Charles Russell continued his pre-
sentation of the case for the earl whicl
was interrupted by adjournment yestcr
day. He declared the petitioner, Count
ess Russell, had not only exaggerated
such facts as she brought forward. but
she suppressed others which she thought
to be detrimental to her claims. Sir
Charles ridiculcd the idea that Russell
kept a pistol convenient for the purpose
of shooting her. The quarrel between
the earl and the countess which occurred
at the Albemarle hotel at the time they
come up TO London to attend the levec
was due not to the earl's compelling the
countess to act as valet to him, as the
countess ties flied. but to the fact that
the earl refused to allow his wife to 90
TO the Ascot races in company with a
man with whom he had every ground to
forbid his wife TO associate.
Immediately upon the conclusion of
Sir Charles Russell's address he called
the first witness for the defense.
The witness was Professor Roberts.
mathematical master at Bath, who was
in the habit of staying frequently at the
residence of Earl Russell. Professor
Roberto made a very emphatic denial of
the actions imputed to him by the coun-
tess in relation to the earl.
The letters that passed between the
earl and Professor Roberts were Their
put in evidence to show the relations
that existed between them.
Earl Russell followc the professor on
the stand. Witness testified that he
never heard the slightest objection made
to the presence of Professor Roberts in
his house. He lWitn"ssl objected TO his
wife going to a certain lndl's house and
based his objection ON the fact that the
lady vas divorced. Countess Russell
was very much put out by the objcc.
tions to her visits 10 the lady's homeland
in the quarrel that followed the witness
said to her: "if You say such things IL
me you Will soon he sorry you married
me- The countess replied, $50 | am
sorry, The earl Gvrlarcd he never in
sisted that the countess should dress
him. If she. Mad not requested him to
allow her u dress him he would not have
let her DO SO. Fo was very much at
t"cLcd to her and had tried to make
things pleasant for her. BE objected 10
her going to Ascot for tine reason that
there were several persons there he did
not wish her to meet.
With reference to the charge that
when the countess on one occasion asked
him. after Il row, for E25 he threw her a
half sovereign. the earl said it was not
true. He was about 10 give her the
money she had asked for when she said:
II don't al your dirty money!
The earl denied the countess state
ment upon the occasion when he had
written ii letter to his solicitor complain
ing about her extravaganza and that he
had treated her in a brutal manner. Sir
Charles then drew from the earl his YER
sion Of the bedroom incident, when the
countess was found nude and in a faint
on the floor. as testified by her maid.
The earl said that after he and his wife
retired he declared he would not 90 to
Lady Salisbury's. owing to the refusal of
the countess to go to Amberly cottage,
the earls residence. The countess got
out Of bed and tainted on the floor.
When she came to she threw a soap
dish at him and made for him with a
poker. She threatened to throw her
self out of the window if he remained in
the room with her.
The earl declared the statements made
10y the countess that he left her and
went to Professor Roberts bedroom to
be absolutely false. There was not the
slightest reason to suggest any imprO-
priety between himself and Professor
Roberts. The earl admitted he once
used the word barren in a CONVERSE
ton with his wife, but he only used it in
fun. He denied the cruelty to cats that
had been attributed to him
Further questioned, the earl stated he
did not think his wife health or nerves
sutfared during her married life. Her
ailments were caused by unaccustomed
restraints. At this point Sir Edward
Clarke, representing the countess, asked
the witness to give ar instance of unac-
customed restraints. The earl replied
that n instance was his limiting his
wife to six cigarettes a day. Witness de-
clared he was not unduly anxious to
nave a son.
He denied that he had ever swore at
his wife or called her a brute or a beast.
He was much annoyed shortly after he
was married by learning that many Of
the countess debts were unpaid. The
earl stated he never kept his wife up in
the night time making up his accounts.
'hSc nv y tolo hiii oiNC WdS |
damned sorry she married him. Sir
Charles Russell handed the witness over
to Sir Edward Clarke for cross-examina-
ton.
Among the first questions put to the
earl was n which caused the audience
to prick up their ears. He referred to
the earl's conduct before his marriage.
and in reply to it the earl admitted that
he had seduced servants, but he said he
told Lady Mabel Scott, his finance, all
the circumstances. and she found that
was no reason to discard him.
The earl says he paid the Williams
girl whom he ruined $500 down and
since paid her 81 a week. The countess
objected to his engaging a man servant
named Moyse, but he persisted in his de-
termination in t.king him back, saying
Moyse was a good servant and was not
with the Williams girl. Sir
Edward Clarke drew out from the
aorl h,y admission that ha 1;fI not fnisI, |