DIVORCE CASE.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1992, 24 May 1875, Page 2

DIVORCE CASE.

Ross v Eoss.—Mr F. A. Inderwick, Q.C., and Mr 11. Searlc appeared for the petitioner, and the respondent in person. In this suit tho wife of the Key. Welland Ross, incumbent of Greetham, in Lincolnshire, prayed for a divorce on the ground of her husband's adultery aud cruelty. He filed an answer" denying the charges and pleading condonation, and that his wife had been guilty of cruelty towards him, :and on tlnifc ground-he asked for a judicial separation. It appeared that the parties were in the year 1855 married at Manninglree,- in Essex, and there have been several children issueof the marriage. The respondent was guilty'_ of adultery, and his wife forgave him ; but, according to her evidence and that of- others, he treated her with cruelty. Mrs Eoss deposed that her husband was in the frequent habit of boxing her ears r and by so doing causing her g t *eafc pain. On one occasion, in the bedroom, .ho held her down on the bed, and from this cause,a quantity of her hair was drawn from her head. He was in the habit of caning some of the children for but trivial, if any offences;" and even when the girls were approaching the age of fourteen or fifteen he inflicted personal chastisement on them. To support the allegation of cruelty, Miss Mary Eoss, a daughter of the marriage, was called, who spoke as -to the . chastisements inflicted on the children, and stated that sho had see marls of violence on her mother. A servant in their employ, amongst others, gave evidence on this head of the charges brought against- tho rev. respondent, and slated that he often boxed his wife's ears, and so violently as to knojk her down. The respondent, who conducted his casein a most peculiar ; manner, and who was frequently rebuked by the learned judge for his mode of examining and cross-examining witnesses, went into the witness-box,' and denied that]|J on more than one occasion he boxed Mr wife's ears. He did riot, however, deny having been guilty of adultery.; but accused his wife of having used language unbecoming a lady to him, and he also alleged that proceedings in lunacy were instituted against;; him without cause. In support of the case the rev. gentleman called several witnesses who were parishioners and servants, ,and though the former added but little light to'the inquiry, one of the latter.spoke to the petitioner making use of a term which the respondent had told.the Court " should not be mentioned to ears polite." After the respondent had addressed the jury at some.length, Mr Inderwick, Q C, replied on the whole case. Sir James Hannen having summed up the case, and given a most elaborate definition as to the law in reference to condonation, he left the question at issue to the jury. They found the respondent had been guilty of cruelty and adultery, that the petitioner herself had nofc been guilty of. cruelty, and had not condoned the offences of her husband. The learned- Judge-Ordinary granted a decree ?ilsi with costs, the wife to have the custody of the children until further' order' of the court. — Home News. '