The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1891-12-02
ANOTHER SCANDAL
Stirs up tho Gossipa of Old English
Families.
THE WIFE OF EARL RUSSELL
Sues for n Scparation..shc Makes
Many Sensational Charges Against
the Noblcman.--A Great Mans Son
Cuts q Sorry Figure In the Divorce
Courts.

ganbaSSt bNiN'o bultt tlNlC
was commenced to-day case which
has excited much comment, particular
ly in the higher walks OF English life.
This case is the application OF Coun-
tess Russell Tor judicial separation
from her husband, Earl Russell, grand.
son OF the great Lord John Russell, oil
the ground OF cruelty.
The troubles between tho earl and
his wife have been public talk Tor
months past, At one time it was re-
ported that they had patched up their
differences and agreed to live together
again nominaly as man and wife, but
this report turned out to be unioundcd,
and, despite the efforts to keep the mat
ter out OF court, the countess persisted
in her determination 10 push her appli-
cation for Il separation. The parties to
the suit are well known in society, and
the allegations and counter allegations
have afforded food for talk for many cir.
clcs.
John Francis Stanley Russell, Earl
Russell and Niscount Ambcrly, was
born August IL, 1865, and is, therefore,
only about twenty-six years old. lie
succeeded to the Earldom OH the death
OF his grandfather John, the first Earl
Russell. On February 6. 1890, the Earl
married Mabel daughter OF tho late Sir
Claude Scott, and very short time
afterward the wife left her husband,
alleging cruelty. While the earl was
al college at Oxford he was noted for
his eccentric theological aud political
views, and after his marriage his ac-
tions were such that the countess be-
licvcl him to be insane and she was in
fear OF her life. 1t is alleged that he
compelled her to submit to the indgni-
ties Of peculiar horrible nature and
for which, upon criminal conviction in
criminal courts, the minimum pun
ishmcnt is seven years Imprisonment.
The evidence for the petitioner was
said to be OF such character that it
was believed the case would BIO heard
in private, but the proceedings to-day
were in open court.
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.
The court room was crowded with n
large number OF persons who listened
with close attention to the proceedings.
The countess, accompanied by hermoth-
er and sister, was present. She occupied
seat in the back part OF the court,
seeming to desire to escape publicity,
but she listened to her counsel Sir Ed
ward Clarke. the Solicitor General, rs
he eoquently set forth the wrongs OF
his client Sir Charles Russell appeared
ftr the earl.
The petition OF the countess states
that from the time she was married
until she left him, Earl Russell habitu-
ally treated her with great harshness
and cruelty, terrifying her and injuring
her health. The earl compelled her to
remain up until . or 3 o'clock III the
morning in doing his accounts. When
she was unable to complete them he
called her useless, uneducated woman
and an ungrateful devil. He also
threatened her with 4 revolver. Not
content with abusing and insulting her
in the privacy OF their apartments, ne
acted toward her in such 4 way that she
was Inundated before her servants.
Sir Edward Clarke, for tho petitioner,
in opening the case to-day, said that
the parties to the sui, had lived together
for only four months, owing to the con-
duct OF the earl. Afterward the
countess was induced to return to her
husband, and they resumed their ior-
mcr marital relations. This continued
but short time, however, when the
countess found the carl's actions in
tolcrable, and they again separated.
After this last separation the carl
wrote aiTectionately to the countess,
and implored her to return to him.
The countess was persuaded against
her better judgment and returned to her
husband, but his affectionate treatment
OF her was OF short duration He again
used personal violence against her, and
made her lie miserable. Once he
drove her from bed, and 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 a window If he entered,
and by this threat she was enabled to
avoid him.
The countess then lost all hope OF liv-
ing 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 so pounds month former cX-
pcnses. This agreement the earl violat-
cd. He paid the first monthly allow
ancc, but after that the countess re-
ccivcd nothing from him except checks
for the amount promised, which checks,
when presented Mt tho bank, were re-
turned dishonored.
Continuing his presentation OF the
case for the countess, Sir Edward Clarke
stated that when the countess married
she had marriage portion OF 100000
This money, however, had nothing to
do with the troubles. When the
countess was suffering from an attack
OF influenza the earl, Sir Edward Clarke
declared, compelled the countess to ac-
company him on reckless drives in in
clement weather, more TO her injury.
The earl made it practice to'lcave
her room and 20 and stay late with 4
man named Roberts, who was sleeping
in the house. He made TIE countess go
TO the servants closets to see if they
were provided with the proper rcquis-
ties.
AS IN evidence OF the estimation in
which the earl held his wife, Sir Ed
ward stated that he often said he would
like to see her carried out OF the house
in coffin.
10 show tho brutal nature Of the
earl, Sir Edward cited instances OF how
ho used to drag cats about with strings
around their necks. More than once