RUSSELL JUDICIAL SEPARATION CASE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 9301, 29 January 1892, Page 2

RUSSELL JUDICIAL SEPARATION CASE.

+ VERY SENSATIONAL CASE. Before Sir Charles Butt and a special jary, this caso was commenced on ' December 1. The pleadings set forth that the petitioner, Mabol Edith, Countess Russell, sought for a judicial separation from her liusband, John Francis Stanley, Earl Russell, on the ground of various acts of cruelly committed by him upon her, all of which the respondent denied. Lady Russell is the younger daughter of the late Sir Olaude Scott and Lady Scott, while - Earl Russell is the eldest son of the late Viscount Amborloy, and grandson of the first Earl, formerly known as Lord John Russell. The petitioner was represented by one Queen's Counsel and a single junior, but the respondent had no fewer thato three Queen's Counsel and a couple of juniors. As soon aB the President had tok^n his seat and the case had been called, Sir Edward Clarke, the Solicitor - General, opened the proceedings with a speech of studied moderation, detailing with great simplicity and obvious self-restraint -some of the incidents on which the petitibn'of Lady Russell was based. He told thdjtiry how the marriage between Lord and Lady Russell had taken place on Feb. 6, 1890, and how husband and wife had separated finally on June 12 of the same year. Even that brief period of four months had been broken by a separation in May, which had only been put an end to by the interposition of family friends, and promises 'of reform on the part of the husband Among other acts of unkind ness it was detailed that Lord Russell had forced his wife to stand for hours while he was attending to his accounts, and that on one occasion she had been made to go down into the cellar wbile some wine was being brought to tho house. Actual violence from Lord Russell occurred in April, and again in June ; but tho, most painful part of the case referred, to, tho husband's intimacy with a Mr Roberts, a mathematical niastor at a college in ■ Bath. When the Countess went into the witness box she was apparently very nervous, and at first her replies were scarcely audible, but subsequently much of her previous hesitation and restraint disappeared. Sir Chas. Russell subjected the petitioner to a severe cross-examination. When pressed as to whether Bhe had been ready to meet her husband half way in the abortivo reconciliation between the two parties, she at onco declared that she had ovincod such a desire at one time, although sho had grave doubts as to the possibility of hor return. There was an unpleasant incident about a m'lliner'a bill, which, however, did not much affect Lady Russell," but, when tho learnod counsel wan taking her briefly through some of the minor points of her allegations against her husband, sho pleaded that sho could not answer the questions as quickly as was desired, as she did not feel very well. Sir Charles at onco offered to postpone his cross-examination, but this the witness would not permit, although for the first time she gave way to tears. Altogether she was in the witness-box for over three hoars the -first, and for one hour on tho following day. * Tho proceedings of the second day opened with the cross-examination of the Countess. She allowed that the Dowager Countess Russell, Lady Agatiia Rubeoll, and the Hon. Rollo Russell had said nothing about the Roberts incident, but had told her things of Lord Russell's past which made hor think there mußt be "something in it," The separation with her husband was a kind of tentative plan, but she did not' part from him on friendly terms. Then thoro was the question of the two dishonoured cheques, which appeared to have boon returned by the bank through a misapprehension. Sir Charles a\ erred that this was the cause of tho proceedings, and made a point by tho avowal of the Countess that the Robert incident had influenced her since the filing of tho petition. Sir Edward Clarke then, by permission, examined her ladyship on the alleged cruelty to animal?, and elicited that Lord Russell, not having been obeyed by a cat which he had called, throw it up to the ceiling sevoral times, and then pitched it on to the top of a wardrobe, with tho remark that ho would " lick it into shape." Lady Russell wont on to say that one. of hor milliner'n bills, which included her. trousseau, amounted to £l,2"0, that hor Lusbapd had advised hor to plead infancy to hor creditors, that sho had refused, that ho had lent her the money, and was, consequently! wont to romark that it was onus ml for a man to pay for tho whole of his wife's wardrobo. Lady Russell indignantly denied that she had inspired paragraphs in the papers. Other witnesses then gave evidence as to injured wrists, torn, lace, and sal volatile, and tho Court adjourned for luncheon On tho reassembling of the Court Sir Charlps Russell roso to open Ms caso in his very bost stylo, lie asserted that cither Lady Russell's evidence was false, or her letters were. There had been gross exaggeration throughout. After analysing tho ovidonco seriatim, Sir Charles examined Lady Russell's testimony, and averred that Iho enforced duties of which she complainod wore absolutely distoitcd. Passionately did Sir Charles aver that Lady Russell had made a vile , sta'omont .with regard to Mr Roborts. Why, the person who drove Mr Roberts to Amberley Cottagj was Lady S-ott. the Countess mother, and yet sho did not scruple to try and blast his character to Eervo her own ends, Four o'clock found Sir Charles' eloquence still unoxhaiuued, but, together with tho Court, it \yas adjourned till the morrow. Sir Charles Russell, apparently not in tho least fatigued by his previous labors, opened tire on December 3 with his usual vigor, by bringing up tho pistol incident and the * { oxtraordioary and incrodiblo Statement" made by Lidy Eusaoll that her husband kept a special pistol handy for her destruction. Sir Charles said it was impossible for Lord Russell to have made the menace at The Hurst, because he knew the woapon Lad, with other furniture, beon sent to bo warehoused at Twickenham. On the occasion rcforred to ho had merely put his hand on her shoulder. Sir Charles Russell next referred to thoscratch on Lady Russell's wrist. Sho had snatched a letter written to Mr Doultou from Lord Russell's hand , and ho accidentally pressed tho bracelet on her wrist. This was not cruelty according to the law of the land. Thun camo tho bad room scene at the Hurst, and Lady Russoll's tale of inexplicable coarseness and cruelty. The lady, feeling ill, had risen, Lord Russoll hud found her fainting, and by every means in I his power had tried to restore her senses. Then ft bout (lie alleged cruelty to cats. Did tho jury beliovo that Lord Russell had thrown this cat to the ceiling ten times, striking it violently on the head ? Amid,

■ &i b &^«nd R flonri.ning l 'and iinight be Ihl £ athw of a large family. After alludiril to Lady Russell'B « curiously perverted Lady Scott and Lord and Lady Russell. ho had an? Wea that his presenco was distasteful to Lady Russell, Mr Roberts scornfully exclaimed, " 1 «un W.*^ I bivd not." Sir Edward Clarke failed to shake Mr Roberts' evidence, and ho ,waj speedily released to make room for the Earl himself. . , . M The Earl, who was examined by Mr •Inderwick, said he made acquaintance of Lady Scott and her daughter by going overto y The Hnrstto make »«angements .foYthe installation of the electric 'M^f fens at Teddington, "never part in the undertaking, but he had nevei made his wife stand up for. hours and go through the account^ of the bus-. O iSet. Ho held her hands to prevent her Joingso Lady Russell had no ob^ecUon loM? Roberts, who had, indeed, on one occasion in Eaton Square, gone up to the drawing-room to sing with the ladies, while lie remained in tho study smoking and -writing. Asked if ho had over gone up to Mr Boberts' bod-room, Lord Russell indignantly said, "It is übaolutely false and he had never hoard a word about it. It was by lii< wife's spocrnl reqneat that she Jiad helped him to dress at the ■ Albemarlo Hotel. On the occasion of he writing of tho letter to Mr Doullon ho ha seized his wife's wrists, but •'she boxed my ears and left the room," added Lord Bujsoll,in so mild a -tone that laughter once more reigned supreme. The " nightdroas," incident was described clearly, and ■with no hesitation. Lady Russell had a fainting fit. Lord Rußsell had trod to bring her to with water, oau-dc-Cologno, and burnt feathers ; bad turned out the gas, opened the window, removed his wife's nightdress, and wrapped her in an eider down quilt when nurse Vale knocked at the door. Lady Russell waa then violently hysterical. He went to the nurse's room, and on asking, "Are you better, darling?" was answered with oaths, and as his wife grasped the poker and threatened to throw herself out of the window, he thought it moro prudent to retire, On the resumption of the proceedings after lunch the nover-ending history of {he dishonoured cheques was first gono into, and any advice to the pleading of infancy with regard to debts was denied The Solicitor-General then leapt up with all eagerness for cross -examination. Absolutely Lord Russell denied that he forced Lady Russell on to her knees, that she had remonstrated with him abont Boberts, or that Jhe had eaid to Lady Scott, " Here is your sainted daughter. Take her away, I'm Bick of her." Lord Ruasell admitted, amid great sensation, that he had seduced the elder ' daughter of his gardener, and that that intimacy had continued to within two or, three months of bis engagement lo Miss Scott. He had paid the mother £1 a week, and still did so, and had also compromised an action for breach of promise of marriage. He had been sent down ±rom Oxford on suspicion of having written an improper letter to a man, but his character had since been completely cleared. Lord Russell said that he had told all the Williams matter to Lady Scott and bis future wife. Then came Lord Russell's final phot. Being asked who were his informants as to th« household arrangements of the gentleman at Ascot whom he did not wish his wife to visit, he replied, " Lady Scott and Lady Rusaell." Loud applause broke out as the Court rose. The jury found that Lord Russoll had not been guilty of cruelty, and tho ca^e was dismissed with costs. The result was received with cheers.