Consistory Court, Friday,...
The Times, 1824-02-07T00:00:00

As our paper or tne ist Ot January yre repotted ttie substance of this case, and 16ee no.v proceed To vive abtxief; set*bpf the argamen;, of coansdl, inasmuch as that'aitgurment vinolye both the facts and the mnerits of' this matter. Dr. LUSHINGT6N havinlg opened the case -on behalf of Captain W-ldey, and Dr. ARtNOLD on the part of Mts. Wildey, Dr. ARNOLDS addressed the Court in support of his client. who was accused by her husband of having comtuitted adtiltery. It was pleaded that this gentleman was absent, in trelard on military duty tro%t the month of September, I2l, until May, I8M, h-s, wife re- siding in the meantime partly in the housethey had inhabited in the Aloha Cottages, and pattly in that of her mother; that CaPtain AVldey returned in May, and not before; and that on the 13th of September following, she was delivered of a fill-grown child, with which she had gone during the usual and regular time of gestation. It was further pleaded, that this chiid, therefore, could not be that of Captain Wildey, but that it must have been the ofanpring of some adulterous connexion between his wife and some other man. Who this other person, this itlegitimiate father, might be, the husband pleaded that he did not know, and had ndt been 1,le to leaten The case damc thUs befm'e the Coutt b thbUt any dto the etidende UStU- ally adduced in such stlis- d;n videince ofife.izious acquaiotince, of visitings, of clandestinlty as to the Wife's inkir-urtise v;ith the adulterer, of the name, person, or identity df the dddlietefi hinsdef, or of the tact of the adultery coriimitted.. Theie Was asn equatl Ze ficienc or dthei ivideiiee uisuaiUy iddi6'ed in ihei7e casea; namely, of an action promoted by the husband a. c.tunmqn 1w rsr ?f. d verdict recorded as of damag.es for the injitrj- by him' 7sutitaia- ed. In the absence of such testimony, the Court would nattirasll be nnost attentive to the character and amount of what testi' molny had been given in the cause. Not only had Captain Wildey pleaded, and brought evidence to sh'ow that he returned in May, 1822, to the residence of his wife; but he had shown that he re- turned also to cohabitation with her, in the ordinary manner, at bed and board, up to the 7th or 8th of September, five days before she was delivered. Why, under these circurisstances, the husband was not entitled, to come before the Court and demand that remedy to which an injured husband was held to be entitled, if not barred by his own neglect or misconduct. Such a remedy the law had pro. vided for those who, ij cases of this unforttintte natdte; had watch. ad vigilantly over their own interestas; but it denied lttd tbod 'seho had slunmbered over their own wrongs-_who felteno sense of thetns, oi who made no complaint of them, until all reasonable time of com: plaint had passed away. Now he (Dr. Arnold) contended, that a husband who returned to residence and cohabitation with his wife, she being in a state of pregnancy, and who continued to cohabit with her for foar monthatogether in atstate,afterwards,witheut making any complaint, had allowed such reasonable time to elapse, had sl-aurbered over his injuries, had shown himself insensible to them, and had manifested, by his own actions, that he considered what had passed to be no injury to him. It was not for sucIa party to come into a Court ofjustice, change his mind, and say that he had not acquiesced in his wrong. His ldng silence had barred his right of camplaint, It was ploded, that in the Jdtly followivii Captain Wildey s return, a quarrel ensued between hibt Ansd his lady; and that, though he slept in the stme bed with her, no hitercourse pass. ed between them up to the very last period of their cohabitation ; ! and that he had no suspicion of his wife's adultery till the 8th Sep. tember. No suspicionH! e retarned to her from Ireland on the 5th month of her gestation, and he resided with her four months subsequenty, and until the very eve of delivery. Now what was condonation, but such an absence of suspicion (if, indeed, that were credible), contrary to all reasonable infer- ence, and all appearances? That aU this time he should not discover the situation in which his wife was, it supposed a degree of faith amounting to credulity to believe. To soften down this apparent impossibility, a witness had been examined, who stated, that though she was in constant attendance on the lady, she never observed an increase in her size; at the same time admitting, that she constantly laced Airs. Wildey's stays, up to the seventh mtonth of het pr naney. The Court was firther required to be- lieve, that when this witness did observe any alteration, she mistook the appearances of the seventh, for those of the second month of pregnancy. Wzs this credible, more particularly seeing that Airs. fildey had had a child before ? The learned counsel then ad- verted to that part of the evidence which p leaded the interview be. tween Captain ll'ildev and Air. Hsllett, the army-agent, on the 8th of September, when ihe latter'congratuLated the Captain (judging ffomn s own observation as hie passed Airs. Wildey in the street the day before), upon the approaching inceawse of his family; to which congratulation Captain Wildey replied, that it was impossible his lady couldl be in a state of pregnancy, for that he had never had the slightest suspicion of the fact up to that moment. AMr. Hallett, referring to his own experience of the world, persisted in his opi nion, that lrs. Wrildey was very large in the family way. Now if she was so large as to attract the casual observation of a stranger in the street, how could her appearance have escaped the eve of her hus. band.-of a husband living in the same house, and sleeping in the sarne bed ? After a varietv of other observations on the evidence, the learned counsel concluded, contending tihat the husband by hiss acquiescence had forgiven the injury which had been done him, and had, therefore, by his owvn conduct, barred himself of his own remedy. Dr. ADANts followed on the same side. He observed, that at the time of the marriage, the lady was of the very tender age of 17 years only; and even at the time of Captain Wildev's removal to illullingar, in Ireland, from Wheedon, in Northariiptonshire, sbe was no mnore than 24. A natural question then suggested itself, why -aptain Wildey had chosen to leave her behind him. rather than take her with hir to barracks? It did not appear that even when he was quartered at Wheedon they had cohabited together there; but the young lady seemned to liave been left in London, and under the care of a mother. From the fact, however, of their long continued cohabitatinn after his return fromn Ireland, surely the Court would find great difticulty in acceding to a prayer of divorce. The birth of the child in September might prove that the wife had committed adultery; but it by no means necessarily followed that the husband was entitled to his remedy. The case seemed to him (Dr. Adams) perfectly novel in its circumstances; and the evidence of Webb was very far indeed from proving the non-access of the husband between July, when the parties quarrelled, and September. Dr. IiUSersnaro,Y (oa behalf of Captain glldey) was not con- cerned to deny the general legal positions laid down by biis learned friends. Where there was such a state of facts as to prove that the husband had been guilty of connivance, or of such a degree of neglect as amounted to connivance, he fully admitted that the husband had no right to come to that Court for his remedy against an inj'ury in which he had acquiesced. But he was prepared to contend, in this instance, that the facts of the ease would brin Captain Wildey witlin the reach of those principles upon which the Coart was ac- customed to extenm its remedy. Instead of furnishing Captain IVildey with that information wlhich thev could, and were bound to give, in respect of the ilm,puted adulteryand the adulterer; her mo- ther and the family not only protected agnd harboured atrs. Wildey, but withheld f'rom him everv information that could enable hini to adopt the necessary proceedings. They had leagued together In the first instance, to conceal from him all knowledge of the adulterv, and of Ntrs. WNildey's pregnancy, and to delude him by the letter (see "'TIe Time:" of the 3lstofdantnary last) written to him by that very wife from whom complaints of want of evidence now came with so ill a grace.There was, from the very nature of the facts, an absence, undoubtedly, of the usual evidence adduced in cases of adultery; but there was amply sufficient to prove the adultery charged. The case of adultery here must, of course, stand on the proof that the wife must have conceived the child born on the 13th of Septem. ber, 1822, while her husband was in ITeland. This, the learned Counsel argued at great length, was indisputably proved, both by dates and by the positive testimony of witnesses.. He then endea- voured to demonstrate the fact of Captain SVildey's ignorance of his wife's pregnancy, fromn yarious circumstances as detailed in evidence, and particularly from the unaffected surprise and concern with which he received the intelligence from Mr. Ifallett, that first awoke his suspicions of her misconduct: his immediate communication with hss solicitor, the steps lie took to -watch her conduct, and ber success- fil elopement from him.'The learned counsel also claimed theflourt's particularattention to the depositions ofColonel Constable, Captain oung, and others, military friends of his client, aa to the sur. prise and grief with which Captain lVildey, after seeing ZIr. Hallett, came to them, ask ng how they would advise hini to act? It was, moreover, admitted, that lrs.'*Vildey had long practiced every art of deceptiot upon him with imputilty, undl sle fegaed those urts, owing to het approachingaccouchement, and her projected rensoval to the houseofherhttsband'smother, could no longer availher and then she eloped: heraubsequent deliveryat abousein Sloane-street, where lsbe waslodgnguaeran a.ssumed name, andherown acknowledament toner sixter, clears, proved her adultery. Captain Wildey's long ignorance of it Was as cleart estdblis})ed, and the learned counsel submitted that he was entitled to his prayet. Dr. DODSON followed on thie same side. Sir CIrrIsToPaER RourNSOif gave Judgment to.day. The Court, notwithstanding the absence of the usuatil tpecies of evidence, was fully satisfied from the factz, and from the deposltions,es!eclal- ly, of the military gentleme1i, that upon Captgin Wildey s part there had been nothing like corndonation. However gsnat the asic- ceas of' such deceptions as had been practited upon htim by Mirs. Wildey might a p peatr his case was wOt without a parallel, for a case much restembling It v as to be fou?i4.inCtoke(Jamsna, 57'S Upon the vhole, the Court was satisfied that Captain Wildey ltadl pro ceeded at the earliest period he couald; and therefore pronounCed, as prayed, for a separatdon. CONSISTORY COURT, FRIDAY. FEE. 6. 1WILDEY V..WILtlz -