The Warwickshire Herald. — 1888-07-19 (Birmingham, West Midlands, England)

TROUBLE CAUSED BY A WIFE.  At the Chester county-court a case has been heard before a special jury, in which Mr. J. I'. Cartwright, solicitor, sought to recover the sum of OD 17s. lid. from Miles Gerrard, market gardener, in respect of professional charges incurred in a snit for judicial separation instituted by Mary Gerrard, wife of Miles Gerrard.—Mr. Cartwright, in stating the particulars of his case, said the grounds upon which the judicial petition was tiled were that Mrs. Geri aril had suffered serious injury and wrongs, that she had been compelled to leave home, and had gone back at his request, and that her life had been made miserable and unhappy by the cruelty which she had received. She had from time to time been seen with bruises, and the neighbours had heard calls of " Murder and gone to her assistance. Mrs. Gerrard ultimately left Mime, and at Chester Railway Station she met a labourer named Coyne, who had been employed by defendant for a period of four or five years at a weekly wage of Vis. Coyne was a If. Cade die, mid it appeared Mrs. Gerrard went to the Catholic church and defendant had also beett there. Defendant spoke to Coyne als ea his 11l luau Catholicism, and said his wife bad been to a Catholic church with hint. Gerrard became enraged, avid discharged Coyne and all the other Irish labourers- who were in his elan by at the time. There Was Ho h.,uiht t hat Mrs. Gerrard went with Coyne to Dublin. and that they slept in the silni.? Mime. Chi the- following day Mr. Gerrard proceeded to hub lb vu and gave Coyne in custody for stealing property which Was found at the stat• at Chester. Coyne was tried, and Gerrard sweariag the articles which hiswifehad taken away were his property, he was connivitted to the sessions. Mrs. Gerrard gave evidence in Dublin, stating that there was no intention on her part to elm.« with Coyne. who was eventually discharged. Ciryne brought an action against the defendant for malicious proseention, and the verdict was given aganoit hint. Refog refused a.4sisian,e. the Petition was served upon the defendant, awl would then be entitled to alimony up to the elate of trial. Mrs. Gerrard had since disappeared, and in consequence id that the plaintiff was unable to proceed I arther with led ease, and tinder the circumstance's he was entithst to recover in ,sts against her husband. --Witnesses were then calli d in 'support of the case, and as to the alleged ernelty towatds Mrs. Cerrard by defendant.—:%lr. (h,. it, im behalf of the defence. cent ended that Mr. Canis right, in bringing the action, was guilty or a %et.), gross error if judgment. Mr. lerra rd cemplaineil of being injured in the greatest po--il.le manner by his wife, and put to very great deal of uNisqu, by her (atwitter. An netion had been Ins eight against him for malicious prosecution, which was gromellesm, and resulted in a verdict in 11,1..1W:wit's favour. 31r. Gerrard, 114 .WeVer, did not get any C.,stp4. In the action for judicial separation he h n.h been put to expense, and now he was called upon hy the plaintiff to pay between £3O and t-10. Ile thought the Mu would say that defendant hail ryas, mul gri,unds in appealing to thell, that there was no legal ground for the action. It was suggested that Airs. tlerraril had gone away to avoid the diVl,ree proc,elfings which had beim ilistalltell against her by her husband. The ease occupied the court in heating the whole day, and ultimately a verdict fur the defendant was returne:l.  MR.