Denton and Haughton Examiner, etc. — 1888-03-03 (Denton, Greater Manchester, England)

THE ROBINS DIVORCE CASE.  There has been beard before Mr. Justice Butt and a Special Jury the consolidated suits of Robins is Robins, and Robins e. Robins and Cochrane. In the first, Mrs. Mary Agnes Robins petitioned for a judicial separation by reason of the cruelty of her husband, Mr. Francis William Robins, who was formerly a lieutenant in the 60th Rides. He denied the charge, and in a cross-suit he alleged misconduct on the part of his wife with the co-respondent, Mr. Charles Stewart Cochrane. In pleading a denial, Mrs. Robins, in an amended petition, alleged misconduct on the part of her husband with Camille BonOur, formerly her governess. Mr. Inderwick, Q.O , and Mr. Searle appeared for Mrs. Robins; and Mr. Willis, Q.C., and Mr. Middleton for Mr. Robins. The co-respondent was not represented by counsel. Mr. Justice Butt, in directing the jury, after a hearing occupying several days, said that in regard to the cruelty alleged by Mrs. Robins, there was a great deal of evidence, which varied in weight and importance. If it were true that Mr. Robins constantly spat at his wife, that alone would entitle her to a decree of judicial separation. As to the throwing of the bronze hare by Mrs. Rubins at her husband, Camille Bonner admitted that this was done in selfdefence, as Mr. Robins had threatened to stab his wife with a pair of scissors. Bornier had said, in crossexamination, that he had boxed her ears, which was an outrage and an unmanly act on the part of Mr. Robins. Mrs. Robins might have been provoking in her conduct, but if the jury found on the evidence that there was violence on the part office husband, unprovoked and unjustified by her acts, then it would be their duty to say that he had been guilty of cruelty. As to the charge preferred against the husband with the governess, there was no doubt that a great intimacy existed between them, but it did not follow that it was of a guilty character. There was no doubt, however, that after Mrs. Robins finally left her husband, he and Camille Hornier had ample opportunities to misconduct themselves if Hwy were so minded. In regard to the allegation as to Mrs. Robins' intimacy with Mr. Cochrane, that principally turned on the question of identity. He did not appear to have been a desirable acquaintance, for he had wronged another man's wife, had been sent to prison for mine charge, and had subsequently attempted to commit suicide, and had now tied the country. As to her conduct at Bristol, it was very foolish and ill-advised on her part to pawn her watch to raise money for Mr. Cochrane, but she did not conceal this matter from the Footes, with whom she stayed, and, in explanation of the falsehood she told her husband with regard to the watch, she said she was afraid to let him know because lie would beat her. The jury, after an absence of about an hour and a half, found that Mr. Robins had been guilty of cruelty to his wife, but, in regard to the other issues, they could not agree. After some legal discussion in regard to that finding, at the wish of the learned judge they again retired, and, after the lapse of ten minutes, they returned the verdict that neither Mr. nor Mrs. Robins had criminally misconducted themselves. Mr. Justice Butt On the findingas to the cruelty I pronounce a decree to the wife of judicial separation, with costs. Mr. Searle With custody of the children? Mr. Justice Butt Yes, and talus dismiss the husband's petition.