Page images
PDF
EPUB

Where a married woman visited an unmarried man at his lodgings, not calling herself by his name, without proof that she knew that they were not his ordinary lodgings, without other proof of clandestinity than that he did not accompany her quite to her husband's door,-Held, that adultery was not proved: Williams v. Williams, 1 Hagg. Con. 299. (The decision in this case was reversed on appeal to the Arches; but it was on further proof of identity in a totally different portion of the evidence.)

Where the wife visited a single man at his house, and the windows were closed, and there were letters which could not be otherwise explained, the Court held the adultery proved, Ricketts v. Ricketts, Con., Feb. 20, 1799, quoted 1 Hagg. 303.

Where the alleged adulterer visited the wife subsequently to the recovery of a verdict against him in an action of crim. con., the Court said: "It is out of all natural credibility that she could, if innocent, admit, as a mere friend of the family, one by whose imprudence and treachery she had been involved in so severe a calumny. It would have been the natural impulse to avoid the man with whose name she was coupled in dishonour :"—Held, sufficient for separation: Chambers v. Chambers, 1 Hagg. Con. 446.

And where a woman has been expostulated with on account of her conduct to a gentleman,

it is a strong presumption against her, if she does not in future avoid appearances that had led to such unfavourable impressions: Loveden v. Loveden, 2 Hagg. C.

The admission of a gentleman to her bedchamber at night, on a frivolous plea of illness, is strong evidence of criminality: Cadogan v. Cadogan, 2 Hagg. Con. 7 (note).

The introduction of a young man clandestinely to the house at night is evidence of adultery: Loveden v. Loveden, 2 Hagg. Con. 44.

A letter confessing violent attachment, complaining of the difficulty of meeting unobserved, marking the times of her periodical indisposition, which rendered her incapable of intercourse, is of a stronger nature than even evidence of having gone to a brothel with a person: Loveden v. Loveden, 2 Hagg. Con. 25.

Associating clandestinely with a third person, gives rise to the strongest presumption; and where there are other circumstances in addition to that clandestinity, the Court will have no doubt: Rix v. Rix, 3 Hagg. 74.

Where a lady admitted two young men to her society, who were rarely in her husband's company, and never recommended by him to her, and they visited her frequently in his absence and were each of them separate and alone with her in the absence of her husband, and breakfasted and dined with her; she visited them at

E

their chambers, walked and rode out with them, and was most anxious to conceal all this from her husband, the court considered these facts so closely connected with criminal habits as to give a high degree of probability to any allegation of grosser criminality: Elwes v. Elwes, 1 Hagg. Con. 272.

Faussett v. Faussett, 7 No. Ca. 72, is worthy of perusal, as showing how evidence affected the mind of the court under the old law.

Evidence against the husband in a suit on his wife's petition by reason of adultery.—This is a ground for judicial separation only, and the petition must be addressed as ante, “Practice," page 2.

Where a person continually exerts his wicked industry in order to accomplish his purpose, and does not succeed in every instance because of a firm opposition, this is more than solicitation of chastity; and if supported by other circumstances in any one instance, it will amount to adultery: Soilleux v. Soilleux, 1 Hagg. 377.

Where a considerable intimacy exists between a married man and a married woman away from her husband, the court will consider and weigh all the facts so as to ascertain, if possible, the true character of the intimacy between the parties as to whether it was merely carried on heedlessly and with want of due caution, or whether it was carried on with any real intention of

committing the crime of adultery: Harris v. Harris, 2 Hagg. 387.

Where a captain in the navy slept on a sofa in the drawing-room of the lodgings of a married woman—she sleeping up stairs, the night being wet, and he going away early in the morning; and where he also on another evening slept at other lodgings to which she had removed, also on an inclement night, it was held in that particular case, being unsupported by any other circumstance, to be no proof of adultery; as, though he, being a naval officer, was not likely to be much influenced by weather, still, from being accustomed to a sea life, his ideas as to accommodation would be likely to differ from those of a landsman; but his conduct was held imprudent: Harris v. Harris, 2 Hagg. 294.

Where a woman of loose character was received on board a ship, whereof the party charged was captain, there must have been full opportunity, if he had been so disposed to have committed adultery, the court said: "If there were any proof of indecent familiarities between the parties, or if the court was in any way satisfied that undue intimacy subsisted between them, then it would travel much more easily to the conclusion that where the facilities were so great, and the opportunity of access so easy, the crime of adultery had been committed; but there was not the least proof of any indecent familiarity nor im

proper intimacy between the parties, nor of any conduct approaching towards it; the court had, therefore, no difficulty in concluding that the proof of the charge had failed: Harris v. Harris, 2 Hagg, 379.

Where a married man went to a brothel and remained alone in a room with a woman of notorious character for a considerable time, the Court (Dr. Lushington) said, "If these facts are not sufficient to raise a presumption of adultery, what facts would be sufficient? The authority of Eliot v. Eliot (a), binds the Court in the case of a woman. Now if a married man goes to a brothel, he being perfectly aware of the nature of the house, I will not say it does not supply an equal presumption of guilt as in the case of a woman; but, supposing the Court not inclined to push this presumption so far as to hold the proof conclusive, still it cannot be denied that such conduct furnishes a violent suspicion a suspicion to be rebutted, if rebutted it can be at all, by the very best evidence:" Astley v. Astley, 1 Hagg. 719. It seems such as can scarcely be rebutted: Ib. 721.

The fact of a man having venereal disease long after marriage is primâ facie evidence of adultery: Popkin v. Popkin, Cons. H. T. 1794, 1 Hagg. 767 (note).

(a) 1 Hagg. Con. 302.

« PreviousContinue »