The Sun. — 1854-11-11 (London, England)

ARCHES COURT, HART V. BART-DIVORCE. This was a suit of divorce, by reason of cruelty, instituted by Mrs. Emily Jane Hart, wife of Mr. James Hart, of Leamington Priors, Warwickshire. From the libel of Mrs. Hart, it appeared that the parties had been married at St. John's, Nottinc,,hill, on the 18th of September, 1847, Mr. Hart having previously been a widower. From the very commencement of their married life her husband, she alleged, bad treated her ill. A week after the wedding he wished her to sign a deed, pledging herself not to marry again after his decease ; promising, in the event of her compliance, to settle upon her 500/. a year. She, however, declined, and he thereupon grossly abused her. He swore that she never should survive him, and that if she had a child she should be murdered in her confinement. On the next day, when at a boarding-house at Margate, she was singing to him, and whilst so employed a gentleman lodging in the same house came into the room, whereupon he instantly ordered her to stop and to accompany him from the room, She did so, and they went into their private room, where he threatened to shoot or drown her. On ane,ther occasion he used actual violence to her. In tie following month (having in the interim reti- Lied to their home at Notting-hill) they were drink,g tea at Mr. }linchcliff's, a neighbour, when Mr. Hart became enraged at her for caressing Master Hinchcliff, a child of five years old. Soon afterwards, in a groundless fit of jealousy, he heat her and said ho would shoot her. She desired him to fetch a pistol for that purpose, and whilst he left the room she escaped into an adjoining garden, where she remained concealed in a shed until three the next morning. She then obtained admission into the house of Mr. Hinchcliff, and stayed there the rest of the night. On another occasion he beat her on their way home from church, because he thought a " white-haired old man" had been looking at her. On the Bth of November he again beat her, because her trustee, to whom she had written at his request, had refused to give up a deed ; and he also threatened to burn down two houses which had been settled upon her. In the middle of next year she was asked to be godmother to the child of Mr. Hart's daughter by a former wife ; bat in the church her husband called her an opprobrious name. As they were going home after the christening dinner he kicked her before him along the street until he was prevented by the police, and when they reached home The beat her With a candlestick until the people of the hone(' interfered. Even then he followed her and threw her down stairs. Many other instances of cruelty were also alleged by Mrs. Hart. In April, 1850, she quitted him, and commenced a suit of separation by reason of cruelty and adultery. At his earnest request, however, she agreed to live with him again ; but he soon resumed his former habits of cruelty ; and, finally, in the following July, he deserted her at the White Hart Hotel at Bristol, where he left her very ill and penniless. Mr. Hart himself put in no contradictory plea ; but he had administered interrogatories to' the witnesses with a view to discredit their testimony. Drs. Addams and Robertson contended that the charges against Mr. Hart had been substantiated ; and that he on the other hand had net succeeded in at all impeaching the conduct of his wife. They, therefore, prayed the court to pronounce for the separation. The Queen's Advocate (with whom was Dr. Spinks) contended that whatever might have been the conduct of Mr. Hart up to the date of the first separation, it had been condoned by Mrs. Hart's consenting to renew the cohabitation. With respect to the acts of cruelty since alleged, the learned advocate argued that they did not amount to legal servitia. Drs. Addams and Robertson having bees heard in reply, Sir John Dodson postponed giving his judgment.