Arches Court, Monday, Jan...
The Times, 1824-01-27T00:00:00

t tils Was a suit of separation andt divorce, by reasoi) of adul- tery, and promoted by the husbaud, - John, Esq., against his wife. The q;uestion betore the Court to-day arose on the admission of the libel given in ott behalf of Mr. John. Dr. J.sNNER, who was of cotnnel for the ladv, too'- a variety of objection13 to the libel, which pleaded thlat on the 23d of January, 1810, these parties were married, and that they cohabited together fbr the term of two months. SIr. John at this t:ne was under-she- rif of the county (of Cornwall, we believe), and beiig obliged to ig to lIuddleston, distant about 70 mike from Penzar.ce, where he hinself resided, he carried the lady to the lhoase of her father in Leicestershire, where she was delivered of a fall-grown child on the 1st of Aprilfollowing. The learned counsel observed, that Mvlr. John had taken this lady i; for better or for worse ;" a remark whiCh was perhaps of a general nature in such cases, bat applied. as he conceived, particularly to this, seeing that Ailr. John must have known that she was pregnant at the tinie of the marriage, when in two mnouths afterwards the delivery took place. The same sort of prnciple niust have regulated the decision of the Court in tbe case of Perrin v. Perrin" (I Adams' Rep.) That was a suit of adul- terv also brought by the husband against the wife. The three first articles of the libel in that case pleaded the marriage and cohabita- tion of the parties ; and stated, that on a certain day Perrin re- ceived information that his wife, l reviotls to her marrdage with him, had had two children by two4diferent men and was receiving, dur- ing the time that she and Perrin lived, together, an allowauce of 401. from oine of her paramours, and 201. froni another ; and that, being taxed -jtIt these facts,she admitted thein. The objection then taken by counisel to this plea Was,that such statements of ante-nuptial misconduct migrht prejurice thle mind of the Court as to the question beforeit; and the Court directed thearticleto be refornsed, Now, in the preseat instance,was the Court to believe,that after a cohabitation of several weeks, it was onlv a fewdays, five or six, before the birth of this child, on thie Ist April, 1810; tlay Mr. John first suspected the pregnancy of his wife ? There was nothing in the case that couldI favourably distinguish it from that of ;" Perrihi v. Perrin," and he contended that ante-nuptial mibcundnier, suchl as the plea in- ferred, ought by no mean-t to have found its way into the libel. The learned counsel proceeded to object to that part of the libel which set forth, that suxbsequently to the birth of the child, articles of sepa- ration were entered into betvween Mtr. John and his wife; for whom ler father, Mr. Grill, madae cerLahti stipu6ations. But Mrs. John never signed this teed: and therefore,.as in evidence of any mat- ters between her and her hbisband, the deed ought not to hava been pleaded at all. She was no party to it: nor was there any thing ia show that it had ever been oftered to her2 for her ecectution. 'the libel fartlier pleaded, that MIrs. John continued in the house of hir father unti Mtay, 1810, when he caused her to be removed to the hou?se of the Reverend Mlr. Palmer, of Redburne, in Leicestershire, acconmpanied bya trusty femaleservant. In this abode DlrsJohn con- tinued to reside until April, 1814, when she became acquainted *vith a Mr. Forster, a medicalpractitioner, tesiding at 1irton, iteas Lind- say. She frequently spoke of him in tert 1 of treat affection I but the libel aid not suggest that any adulterY took place oil het part while in the honse of the Rev. Dlr, Palmer. It stated, thaLt with a view to receive tle yisit; ot fr. Forgter, ill s. Johii frequtently feigned MiUsess; and refused food in the day-time, for the purpose of earrymg on.the deceplion; an one odcasion of jich pretended ill- ness, she teqiestdd Mes. Palmer to send for ilr. Forster' and on Mits. Palmer's refasal, observingthat'she only affected sicktiess, she seized someglasses, and broke thembby dashing them against the wall. The learned counsel thought this fact oaglht not to have been intro- duced, as It could: golittle way to support the plea on the- other sitle, whichl was, that shewvas so warmly attached to the party, that she look this mnanner ofexpressing her resentment when exposed to the liability of being defeated in bet object. The leth article did con- tain a more direct chare of adultcry between lrs. John and MIr. rForster; for it pleaded that in Mfarch, 1814, the servant, who had accompasnied hlrs. John fron her father's, wentto live at KIirton, l'nete she mharried one Smith, and Mrs. John removed-to her house. In the sumnner of 18s5, she was there frequently visited by Mr. George Fdrster,llth in the day timeand at very unseasonable hours at night; and'in April, 1816, often wrote letters to him, and receiv- ed letter from him in return. it -was here pleaded, that about April, 18i6, but the time was not more particalarly set forth, Ar. Forster was sentfor by Xrs.John, and remained withlerfor severidl hours: that they retired to bed together, and that from particular circum- stances which took y]ace, a slspicion was established that thley com- mitted adulterv to Cqher. This, the counsel argued, was a matter that ought to hiave bqen pleaded wPzh sufaicient spe?Lfiaeaion to admit of the othet party's dsounterpleadii ig to it. zAgain, in April, 1816, a ahorttimepresiqustic~hisi~rrianigct "MIrs. John wrote a letter to Ir. Forstcr, w}igh VA5S 9 fOUaws a-" and then the contents were stateti. lNow, inatad et~osebein,gdeposed to,thetletter ousht itsell *obavebeen prodyiq Jtdpl aded tB 3n e?biti t caBnt i tv satt to bein the possessionoPthirrd parties,who were thie representatives .of. Mr. Forster, since deceased. The adulterous connexion With Milr. Forster seemed to have terminated with his narriage. But-thc 15th article of the libel pleaded a criminal intercourse betweed Mrs. Johb and a person bf the name of lYayland, a curate; several facts were alleged tendingto show that this was the case, and then it was expressly set for that " on one occasion, but when the deponent could not more particularly allege and propound," daring Mmrs. John's residence at Smith's ouse, Sniith discovered Wi'ayland and Mirs. John in such a-situlation together as could leave no doubt at -all of their crimninal intercourse. Now here it was highly material that the charge should be specifically laid at present it was so loosely put, that if it were proposed to prove it. it was impossible to meet it. On the grouds he had stated, the learned counsel sub, mitted that the libel required so mucb reform thae it ought to be rejected. Dr. JEssE AIDDAMS ?followed on the same side. He remarked that the adultery w.th Alr. Forster was charged to have taken placc in April, 1816, in a distant part of the country; and it weas now, in 1824, that they were to dissass the admitssibility of the libel in Lon- don. It was pleaded that these adulterous intercourses, subsequent to the separatiQi3, first came to M1r. John's knowledge in 1821; and it was now, in 1824, that he came into Court. The objection whiic had been urged by Dr. Jenner to the first .art of the libel seemed to be a rcs adjudicate in thc case of " Perrin v. Perrin:;" and he trast. ed the Cottrt would reject the libeL Dr. SWABEY and Dr. LuswescGTmN, for AlIr. John, accounted for the lapse of time during which this cause hasd stood still, by suggesting the remoteness of the scene of these transactions from Alr. John's residence, and the extreme difficulty and delay expe- rienced in getting together the necessary evidence in the country. As for Alir. John's slumbering over that which their learned friends seemed to consider a vitiusu7 " patCns,"-narnely, the pregnancy of his wife at the time of the marriage, and heT being so near *her time that the infant was born after thev had cohabited together only two nionths,_surely their learned friends were not aware of the facilities with wvdch ladies in sucl a situattion could sometimes evade the vigi- lance of their husbands. it was remarkable, that at the present moment there was a cause depending in the Consistory Court of London in whicl, at the d,ti,e of the mdrriage, the wife was muc12 more advanced in pregnLancy, and vet it was satisfactorily proved that the husband wa:, totaUy ignorans of the fact. The COURT.-The pariT could not be much more advanced, Dr. Lushington; for Dr. .John, it is pleaded, discovered the preg- narcy of hbi wife on the 26th of Mlarch, and she was broug r to bed of a " full grown male child" on the Ist of April following. Dr. LussstNGToN admitted that the time was about equ2l in both cases; namely. about a week.- - SirJoini N!CHOLL directed the libel to be reformled generally, subject to the remarks which the Court had interposed pending the heariniR. ARCHIES COURT, IAONDAY, JANE. 26. JOlIr AC-AHJ'T nflht,.