A POINT IN DIVORCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8812, 27 February 1892, Page 2 (Supplement)

A POINT IN DIVORCE.

Ik tho caso of Yarrow v. Yarrow a remarkable divorce suit came before Sir Charles Butt in tho Divorce division on January 9. This was a potition presented by tho husband, a corn merchant, for divorce, on tho ground of the misconduct of his wife, who it was now admitted was insane, and who appeared by her brother, her guardian. The defence was insanity. Mr. Yarrow, tho petitioner, it was stated, was married to the respondent on December 10, 1874, at Sc. Giles', Chamberwell, at which time ho was 28 years of age and tho lady '20. They aftorwards went to South America, and upon their return to Englaud resided in Ross, Herefordshire. There was no issue of the marriage. Subsequently she seemed to take a dislike to her husband, and made a confession of immorality, which she stated took place about two years before the marriage. In July, 1890, she came to London, and took apartments in Bernardstreet, Russell Square. From there she wrote to him that she had misconducted herself while in London. After that a deed of separation was suggested. The petitioner agreed to give her £2000 in Barry Dock shares, but ho was unwilling to apply for a divorce by reason of his being a member of the Irvingite Church. From letters tho lady afterwards wrote to some friends, the question of her sanity was considered. After that, in September, 1890, she insisted that her husband was trying to poison her, and eventually tho lady went to the police station in her night-dress, and it was then considered she was insane, and j was so now.

Mrs. Esther Lowey, who kept a lodginghpuse in Bernard street, Russell Square, gave evidence proving that the respondent, while lodging in her house, on one occasion brought homo a gentloman. The bed showed it had been occupied by two persons. For the respondent it was contended that she conceived tho idea that her husband was poisoning her, and she deliberately misconducted herself for the purpose of getting relief from tho poison she thought hor husband was administering her. Sir C. Butt, in giving his judgment, said tho petitioner's case was established by evidence. Tho allegation that the respondent was incapable of understanding the guilty nature of tho act sho had committed was nob sustained by the evidence —nay, more, it was absolutely negatived by the testimony that had been givon. He was by no moans sure that insanity, which would ontitle the accused to an acquittal on an i indictment by tho Crown, would constitute a valid defenoe for a suit of divorce on the ground of adultery. Ho granted the petitioner a decree nisi, and gavo leave to appeal. ____________