Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

17 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

-THE CHARITY OF THE PEOPLEI…

----_--__-----CURIOUS PRESENTS…

A NEW SYSTEM OF RAILS.

BRITISH WORKMEN IN PARIS.

THE GLOSSOP CONVENT.

AN EPIDEMIC WITH AN ALIAS.

THE SILVER MINT OF JAPAN.

iSARMY DRESS AND EQUIPMENTS.

THE ABYSSINIAN PRISONERS.…

AN UNHAPPY MARRIED LIFE.

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

AN UNHAPPY MARRIED LIFE. In the Divorce Court, in London the cause of Forth v. Forth" has been tried, and was a suit by the husband for a judicial separation on the ground of his wife's cruelty. The respondent answered denying the cruelty, and charging the petitioner with cruelty. It appeared that the petitioner is a dissenting minister at a place called Basford, in Nottingham- shire, and registrar of births, deaths, and marriages for that district. A t the time of his marriage with the respondent, which took place in April, 1857, he was a widower with two children. The respondent was alleged to have exhibited an irritable and ungovernable temper immediately after the marriage, having threat- ened while on the marriage tour to run away and leave the petitioner. After this the married life of the parties seemed to have been a continual scene of annoy- ance and ebullition of violent temper on the part of the respondent, and in June, 1865, the petitioner, being unable to put up with it any longer, ceased to cohabit with her, although they still resided under the same roof. There are five children the issue of the marriage. The petitioner was called, and stated the various acts of cruelty of which he complained. Among these was an attempt to throw one of his children by his first marriage into the fire, throwing candlesticks at the petitioner, scratching his face, throwing the contents of a milk jar over him and then throwing the jar at his head, burning the nose of his oldest child, and also burning his own face with a lighted paper and singing his hair, laying his forehead open with the heel of a boot, throwing a baking dish with a fruit pie in it at him, which struck him and went all over him throw- ing books at his head, and burning his sermons, papers, and books,'and threatening to set the house on fire. Several witnesses were called, who eorroborated the petitioner in the main points of his evidence. The respondent's case being one of cruelty against the petitioner, she was herself placed in the witness- box, and detailed several instances in which the peti- tioner had treated her with neglect when she was ill and during her confinements. She also stated that he had not allowed her and her children sufficient food, and that he had always shown a partiality for the children of his first wife, whom he taught to treat her with oontempt. In respect of the charges spoken to by the petitioner, she either denied them or explained them away. The respondent, Mrs. Forth, was cross-examined by the Queen's Advocate. She stated that she had instituted a cross-suit for cruelty against her hus- band, and that she was still residing under her husband's roof for the reason that the petitioner would not allow her 15s. a week to keep herself and five children. She denied having thrown either a candle- stick or a water-jug at her husband's head, and she never saw blood upon his face. On one occasion she laid hold of his whiskers to protect herself. and she might have accidentally scratched him. On the occasion of his knocking her about she was bruised, and had to apply to a medical man in consequence. She did on one occasion throw a few drops of milk at him, but she never threw a milk jar. She considered herself in danger by living with her husband. Mr. Mosby, a surgeon at Basford, stated that he had attended Mrs. Forth in several of her confinements, and in 1860, when she was ill with gastric fever. He considered that on that occasion there was an indiffer- ence on the part of the husband, as he never saw him in the bedroom. Isabella Hindson stated that in 1863 she lived within a few doors of the petitioner's house. On one occasion she heard screams of Murder proceeding from his house, and next day she saw Mrs. Forth, whose arms were bruised, and looked as if some one had griped them. A servant girl, who was in the employment of the parties in the spring of 1863, stated that Mr. Forth behaved very ill to his wife. She had seen him stand over her, with his hand up, and call her a bad, base, lying woman." He had told witness not to mind what Mrs. Forth said, as he was the master. He beat the children he had by Mrs. Forth, but he was very kind to the other two. Mrs. Westward stated that she nursed Mrs. Forth in her last confinement, in 1865. She was there a month and a day. Mr. Forth never visited her all the time. The doctor ordered her to have mutton and brandy, when the husband got two mutton chops and half-a- pint of brandy, but he refused to get any more brandy. On the application of the Queen's Advocate, Mr. Forth, the petitioner, was recalled, and denied the statements made by the respondent's witnesses. At the conclusion of the evidence on both sides, Dr. Spinks, on the part of Mrs. Forth, contended that no cruelty had been proved as having been committed on the petitioner, and the only point in his case seemed to be that he wished to thrust the step-mother of his children out of his house. He held, however, that there was nothing to justify the interference of, the court. The Queen's Advocate followed, on the part of the petitioner, contending, from his own evidence and the witnesses who corroborated him, that a clear case against the respondent had been made out. He, therefore, called upon the Court to grant him the relief prayed for. The learned Judge, after going over the various acts of cruelty charged, and the evidence respecting them, stated that he considered the charges of cruelty proved, and granted a decree of judicial sepa- ration.

THE PRUSSIAN EMBASSY BALL.

THE HOUSE OF PEERS.

A SCOTCHMAN'S TASTE FOR MUSIC!

A SAD TALE OF 'THE SEA. »…

VACCINATION AS A SAFEGUARD.…

FATAL RESULTS OF A QUARREL.

[No title]