Arches' Court, Monday, Ju...
The Times, 1824-07-06T00:00:00

This was a suit of separation and divorce, by reason of adultery, promoted by Sarnuel John, Esq., of the parish of hiadan, in the county of Cornwall, against Mlrs. Mary John, his wife. Dr. SWABEY opened the pleadings, and stated the substance of the libel: from which it appeared that the parties were married on the 23d of January, 1810; and that this eause had been removed, by letters of request, from the Consistorial Court of -Bath and Wells to this Court. At the time of the -narriage htr. John was a bachle. lor, 21 years of rge and upwards; and Aliss Yeales, afterwards Airs. John, was described to be a spinster, also of the age of 21 years and upwards. It was pleaded, that these parties cohabited together as man and wife at Ur. John's house, at Penzance, until about the 24th of March, 1810, when a scparation took place be- tween them, sinre which time they have altogether ceased to cohabit; and Mrs. John has resided at the house of her father, and in other places; that on the 19th of Alarch, 1811, articles of separation were entered into between them and the father of the lady: by the tenour of which it was stipulatel and covenaated that Air. John and his wife should thenceforth live separateandapart from each other; that Mr.John shouldgire upall claimto a sum of 2 000L themarriage-por- tien of the wife, and should takeback again ail the propertv which he had brought into the marriage-settlement; that about the month of May or April In the following year, AMrs. John retired to an asylum which her fathe- had obtainev for her at the house of the Rev. Mr. Palmer, the vicar of Redbourne, in liAnolnshire, to which place she was accompanied by a female domestic of the name of Green, who continuied to reside with her, until she herselfmarried a carpen- ter of the name of Smith; that Mrs. John was supported in her re- treat at Redbourne at her father's expense, until the period of his death, which happened in the month of November, 1813; that lie left a will, dated the 7th of May of the same year. by which he be- queathed to Mr. John a legacy of Il0I. as a mark of his great esteem for that gentleman and by a codicil of the 8th of May, 1810, he made a provision for the further support and mainitenance of his daughter, by leaving her, subject tothe condition thereinafter men. tioned, an annuity of 1501. per annum, to be paid unto her by equal pay-nents, &e., tiU the day of her death, and not to be subject to the debts or control of her husband; but writh the proviso, that in the event of Motr. John's dying before her, she should not set up anv claim to property settled on him. The father of the lady (MlIr.Wi. liars) also left upon similar conditions, to Susan, the child of irs. Jonn, an annuity of S01. per annum, to the daughter for her life, provided she should never claim of the husband, or his assigns, any sun or sums of mo. ney under the marriage-settlement of her mother. The libel pro- ceeded to charge, that up to April 14, AMrs. John eontinued to reside at Redboaine, in the house of Air. Palner; and that during suck sesidence she formed an adulterous intercouse,unknown to the family in whicli she lived, witlh a AMr. Grorge Robert Forster the son anil assistant of her medical attendant, who resided at thie village of Kirton, 2 miles from Redbouie ; that she always manife-ted the greatest uneasiness and anxiety on his account; and in order to see h:m would feign herself ill, send for him, and retain him in her room at unseasonable hours of the night, &c.; and that shc was often remonstrated withi on this account by Mrs. Palmer, who on one occasion so Imluch irritated M rs. John by her expostulations that the latter in a passion flung down and demolished someglasses t'hat hap- pened to bc close at hand. In Alarch, 1814, Mlrs. John went to reside with her former servant Alargaret, vrlo had married Smith, and lived at Kirton, in a house whiichi had forrmerly been one large house, but was now divided ihto two tenemvents the one separated from the other by a thin partition; and the libel charged that by reason of thethinnessof such partition, the inhabit- ants of the tenement adjoining Smith's, and particularly of the room adjoining Mrts. John'sehamber, hearl footsteps, and voices, and noises in thelattar, which satisfied them that that lady indulged herself in cHr- minal atiours with M1r. 0. R. Forster. It was during her sojourn and protracted illness in this abode, that Mrs. John became acquaintetl with theclergyman ofthe parish,who read,and prayed, andadminister. ed thcsacrament to hierand oneortwo other femalefricnds,and yet with this reverend gentleman the libel charged, and there wassonTeattempt in the cvidence to prove, that llrs. John also formed a criminal con- nexion. Thcse were the principal facts charged in the libel; but the depositions appeared to fall very far short of proof as to the ma. jor and more important part of the facts. M any of the witnesses vouched to particular facts they either did not establish, (as was ob. served by Dr. Jenner), or absolutely disproved them; and among the exhibits in the cause, there was a very interesting letter (which, though read in Court, would be much toe long for insertion ere), from Mlargaret Smitd, the ci-deviant servant of Airs. John, but now produced as a witness on thc part of the husband, addrcsed by the writer to her mnistress, and depre. eating with moucl unaflectcd earnestness the attempts which she conceived had been made by the examiner for the conniission in the country, to make her criminate trs. .John against her ownI repeated protcstations as to belief of her innocence. Sone irreztr.. larity was also complained of by Mrs. John's coIInsel, on the pro. ceedings of the proctor for 5Mr. John, who had, of his own niotion, and Wlthlout any autliorityfroin thc Court, cndorsed the Court's pro. cess, withl a requisition to the widow of the late Alr. G. R. Forster, (a party impugned? to deliver up a letter fromn Airs. John to that gentleman; and which Airs. Forster. who long refuged to give it up, ultimately surrendered with a view,' as she declared, to the vindica- tion of her deceased husband's character in this affair. (This letter was also rcad; it contained any thing but admissions or recognitions, undoubtedly, of ar.y criminal intercourse between the writer and thc party to whom it was directed.) The Court said it was satisfied that the errorof the proctor was purely unintentional. The reading of the evidence occasioned no little mcrriment in Court: bitt really the defails are somewhat too scandalous for publication ; nor shoul(d wc be justified inl committing a gross breach of public decorum, for the sake of reeapituxlatinr tbe whimsical expressions of indignation which the suppqcrd vicinity of licentious vice called for from the sober coutple, whose sluembers were strangely disturbed ever night, on account of their proximity to Alr.Sniith's dortnitories. We may state, however, thlat when the deposition of the husband, a butcher, was read, no gravity could withstan(d the soleinnity with which lie deposed to bering on those occasions awakened by his wife, who hearing the said noises " could not cotitain herself," and devoutly ejaculated, " that if MLIrs. Jolhn was a daughter of hers, she would horsewhip her to death for such goings on." Among the corres- ondence exhibited was a letter froin a rural critic, wvho, regretting is lack of news in a corner of lAincolnshilre, stated, that the only thinig he had to commounicate was, that a new parson had latelv come to Kirton.an elderly gentleman without a tooth in his head, and by no nieans a good rcader_in consequence of whichl defects, the Food people of lKirton, who could not hear him, and were at no tinie very measured in their censures, had voted him the desig- nation of " bumble-bee." (Laughter.) Dr. SWAniEY was heard for Mr. John, and Dr. I,USIIIYOTON (who was absent) will reply next court day on his behalf. Dr. JESNET appeared for Mlrs. John, aind will be followed by Dr.JESssE ADDAIMS. The Court assigiied the further hearing for next ilonday. ARCHES' COURT. IONTDAY. Jatv 5. JOHn V. JOHlN.