The Potteries Examiner : — 1872-06-01 (Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England)

MAN AND WIFE.  In the Court of Probate and Divorze the case of Jackson v. Jackson was heard before Lord Penzance.  - . 'l'his was a suit by the wife fro restitution of con. lugel rights. on the ground "that William Jackson, her husband, without any just cause refused and still refuses to permit the petitioner to live and cohabit with him, and aiso to render her any conjugal rights." The respondent has answered, alleging against his wife violence of temper, abusive and insulting language, cruelty, and habits of intoxication, on which he prayed for a judicial separation. The petitioner, in her replication, denied these allegations. . . . .  It appeared that the parties were married at Bishop Auckland on the 20th of January, 1853. The respondent is a metal broker, and after the marriage and up to 1869 they reeided at Middlesbrough. In that year they removed to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where the respondent has carried on business since. There have been eight children the issue of the marriage. Some time previous to 1869, the respondent alleged having found that his wife had become addicted to drink, and when so broke out into violent fita of passion; but in that year her habits became worse, and in March, 1870, her conduct became so unbearable that he separated himself With his children from her, and they had never since oolmbited. He stated that on various occasions daring 1869 to 1870, up to the time of their separation, she scratched his face, palled his whisker., and struck him with a poker, threatened to murder hini, accused him of having committed adultery with the servants, and used most abusive and insulting language. . . .  In eroaa.examination by Mr. Serjeant Parry,  The respondent denied that he ever struck his I, wife, spat in her face, called her bad names, or in any way ill-treated her. He never came home in- , toxicated, and Was not in the habit of drinking. The accusation his wife made against him with the servants was totally false. He might have slept with Ms wife up to within teu days of their final Separation. Several servant girls-who had beer. in the service of the parties were called in corroboration of the respondent, and who spoke as to the petitioner's drunken habits and violent conduct towards that gentleman. On the conclusion of the respondent's case, Mrs. Ellen Jackson, the petitioner, was called, and stated that she noticed a change in her husband's habits towards her about 1865. He spoke disparagingly of her to her friends. She alm saw that he took to drinking habits. He used to come home and go to sleep in the dining-room, and she understood the servants had sometimes to help him to bed. He was always charging her with being extravagant, and he often told her that she was out of her mind and insane. She positively denied that she was ever in the habit of drinking. She never took wine or brandy, or any stimulants whatever, except with her food. She never took spirits before breakfast, and she never secreted spirits for her own use. She may have called her husband a beast. She did so when he epat in her face, and when he came to her bed in the morning and took her up and annoyed her. On one occasion he spat on his hands and rubbed them on her face. He also used disgusting language to her, and called her bad names. That was his continual practice. On several occasions he called in medical men to see whether or not she was insane. He often locked her *at of her bed-room. He did Bo in 1869, and in January, 1870, he attempted to throw her out at the door. He was tipsy at the time, and he fell with her in the passage. He often carried her and drove , her about.