The Sun. — 1861-07-08 (London, England)

RADFORD V. RADFORD.  This was a petition of Francis Radford, a builder of No. 3, Camden-villas, Camden-town, praying for a judicial separation from his wife on the ground of adultery. The respondent denied the allegations of the petitioner, recriminated the charge of cruelty, and also pleaded condonation. Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Dr. Tristram, and Mr. Inderwick were for the petitioner ; and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Dr. Spinks for the respondent.  From the opening statement of counsel, it appeared that the parties lived at Camden-town and Westhourne-grove for several years, and there were four children issue of the marriage. According to his statement the conduct of the respondent was very violent during the whole time, but at her request he forgave her, and they resumed cohabitation until their final separation. Mr. Radford, the petitioner, said that the marriage took place at St. Pancras, on the 24th of August, 1845. He started in business for himself about seven years ago, and prior to that year he had been in partnership with his brother. His wife's language to him was most violent and abusive, and she was in the habit of spitting at him, and on one occasion she locked him up in his bed-room. She abstracted some of his manuscripts. Kept a diary, and the memoranda produced were in his handwriting. One day while he was at dinner she gave him a violent blow on the head. On another occasion her conduct was so violent that ho refused to sup with her. He remembered in the year 1855 her rushing down stairs in liar night. dress and her scratching his face and pulling his hair. She had also on another night kicked him in bed and pulled off the bed clothes. In the early part of January, 1855, she requested him to forgive her, and he consented to do so. In the February of 1856, she jumped eut of bed and pulled him by the hair. She used to go to where his brother lived under the impression that he was there and pull the window and doors down as well as everything else which she could lay her hands on. She had said that there were thieves in the family, and there would soon be a murderer, and he understood she said she would murder him. On the same occasion she said that she would not put up with such a - scoundrel as ho was. In August, 1859, he remembered her being very abusive, and his desiring her to leave the room, and plaoing his hand on her shoulder, he insisted on her going out of the room. She then seized him by the hair, which she pulled violently. He did not recollect whether he slept with her that night. The next morning he felt very unwell, and found that she had pulled a quantity of hair out of his head. She continued this violence until the 7th of April, 1860, when he ordered her out of the house, and she said she would not go. He did not sleep with her subsequently. He denied most positively that he had ever given her a black eye or struck her with a broom. In the year 1857 he was laid up with congestion of the brain, which he was satisfied was produced by her violence. When provoked by her ho admitted that he had called her a strumpet, but he did not use that term in the sense of any imputation on his wife's character. On those occasions when he slept apart from his wife it was in consequence of some previous violence on her part. Several witnesses were called, who deposed to the petitioner's kindness towards his wife, and to her violence.