The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-12-02
NASTY DIVORCE SUIT.
Horrible Depravity Of Lord
John Russell's Grandson.
ABUSED HIS BEAUTIFUL WIFE.
4 Nan Of vile Habits and Astounding
Cruelty-His Disgusting Behavior
In the COURTROOM.

LONDON, Dec. LIN her majesty's high court
Of justice, before Justice Bull, there was COM
menced today q case which excites much COM
ment, particularly In the higher walks OF
English life This case is the application Of
Countess Russell for Judicial separation from
her husband, Earl Russell, grandson of the
great Lord John Russell, on the ground of
cruelty. The troubles between the earl and bis
wife have been public talk for months past.
The parties to the suit are well known in
society, and the allegations and counter allega-
lions have afforded topics for conversation in
many circles Of polite society. The earl denies
the allegations made by his wife and explain rs
that the whole trouble is due to bis mother-in-
law. Sir Charles Russell appeared for the earl,
and Sir Edward Clarke, solicitor general. repre-
sented the countess. The petition OF the
countess states that from the time she
was 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 com PEELED her to remain till or
o'clock in the morning doing his accounts. he
threatened her with a revolver, and not content
with abusing and insulting her in the privacy
OF their apartments, he acted toward her in
such way that she was Inundated before her
servants
The courtroom was crowded with large
number of persons, who listened with close at
tention to the proceedings. The countess, ac-
companied by her mother and sister, was pres
emit She and her relatives occupied seats in the
back part OF the courtroom, seeming TO desire
to escape from the observation OF the crowd.
The countess was sttired in an elegant blue
velvet dress. She wore an expensive boa about
her neck and a large hat, which set off her
beauty to great advantage She displayed much
modesty, and was greatly embarrassed by some
a. - 81 - -
responded in a meek and almost inaudible voice.
Lady Scott, the petitioners mother, sought by
her presence to add to her daughters courage in
the trying position in which she was placed. She
occupied the time while her daughter was
giving testimony by a continual shifting at a
vinaigrette. The countess sister sat beside her
mother.
In appearance the earl is great contrast to
the handsome and stylish young wife. He is q
weak-syed and youngish-looking man, has hair
OF a red tinge, and is what is known In slang
parlance az 'swashed out" His appearance
was not improved by the spectacles which he
wears. During the recital of the incidents of
her married life, the earl, who was sitting in
court, frequently buried his face in his hands
to hide his laughter His actions showed that
he felt no conjunction for his treatment of
his wife. He seemed to think the whole affair
was fine subject for mirth. Many spectators.
whose minds were not confused by the high
with disgust
Sir Edward Clarke, 70 the petitioner, in OPEN
ing the case today, said the parties TO the suit
had lived together for o My four months owing
to the conduct Of the, earl. Afterwards the
countess was induced to return to her
husband, and they resumed their former
married relations. This continued but a
short time. however. when the countess
found the earPs actions intolerable,
and they again separated. After this last sepa-
ration the earl wrote affectionately 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 afsctionate treatment was Of
short. duration. He again used personal
violence against her and made her life misera-
bic. The countess lost nll hope OF living hap
PLY with her husband, and she again left him.
Prior TO the separation, the countess support
was talked over, and the earl agreed to allow
her ESQ a month for existence. This agreement
the earl violated He pai,7 the first monthly al
lowance, but after that THE countess received
nothing from him except checks for the amount
promised, which checks when presented to the
bank were returned disholaored.
In presenting the case for the countess Sir
Edward Clarke stated that when the countess
married she had a marriage portion OF go 0O0
This money. however, had nothing to do with
the trouble When the countess was suffering
from attack of influenza the earl, Sir Edward
declared, compelled her to accompany him on
reckless drives in fnclemant weather, much to
Der injury. The earl made 1t practice to leave
her room and go to stay with man named
Roberts, who was sleeping In the house. He
made the countess go to the servants closets to
see II they were provided with proper requisites.
As evidence of the estimation in which the
earl held his wife Sir Edwilrd stated that he
often said he would like to her carried out of
the house in a coffin Referring to the earl's sc.
counts, Sir Edward said he would compel the
countess TO arise after she had retired and 90
downstairs TO fix them up. He would then
abuse her in the most 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 a school at
Bath.
involved I'm his alleged relations with Roberta
Sir Edward declared, and his wife could not feel
otherwise than outraged and distressed by these
relations
To show the brutal nature Of the earl, Sir Ed.
ward cited instances to show that he used to
drag eats about with strings about their necks
More than once he amused himself by throwing
cat at the ceiling until he nearly killed the
poor hesst. The countess demonstrated with
the earl against this cruelty, whereupon the
latter said: twill lick you into shape II you
don't mind"
When the countess objected to Mr. Roberts
presence In the house. the earl told her 70 go 10
the devil. Continuing Sir Edward said the earl
was much upset by the prospect OF the countess
not having a child He abused her for this and
called her n barren woman.
Early In Nav the earl and countess proposed
TO attend ievee. The earl made her act as his
valet when in London. The countess was natur-
ally annoyed that her husband should force her
Co perform mental services, and told him
she sorry she ever married
him. The earl ut once rang the
he'll aud told the servant who answered to
summon Lady Scott, the countess mother.
when Lady Scott entered the room, the earl
tsid; "Here is your sacred daughter: take her
away soon IS YOU like, and you can so 10 the
devil"
IL on her return. at her husbands re-
quest, after their temporary separation that
the countess was found one night nude and in
isintins condition on the hoor in the room
occupied nv her and the earl. The earl told
the maid who had gone to the room that some
water had fallen on the countess night dress,
and he had taken it oil.
When Sir Edward concluded his address he
called the first witness. This was Countess
Russell she arose from her seat in the rear of
the room and made her way 10 the witness boy.
When she had taken her place Sir Edward nro.
ceeded 10 question her He first asked regard.
ing the presence of Roberts in the house aDt, the
ears visit % the room occupied by him. The
countess stated in reply that she had remon-
strsted with the earl because OF these visits
Being asked If the earl gave any reasons for
going TO Roberts room, the countess
made no reply, but said the earl
wss more unkind TO her when
Roberts was in the house Replying 20 other