On this page
-
Text (1)
-
430 PASSING EVENTS.
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
: *•¦» ; F? Several " It B Y I The J S C...
lie was at San Francisco . Since lie had left her she had obtained her own which livelihood she , and wished , throug protection h her own for exertions under the , had new accumulated actas she a little had reason property to ,
believe he would return and claim it Mr . Combe asked , her what was the description of her property . She replied that it was furniture , stock in trade _,
husband and a little left money her the left furniture her by and a relative stock . . She Mr rep . Combe lied in asked the negative whether . She her had become possessed of them since he deserted her . Mr . Combe told her
that she was entitled to the protection afforded by the recent Act of Parliawith ment the ; therefore registrar he of should the Southwark make the County usual order Court , . and App direct licant . it to thanked be lodged his
worshi The p case and of withdrew Bostbck . versus " Bostock , instituted by the wife against the of husband those , miserable upon which cases Sir which C . Cress point well to delivered the nece jud ssity gment of an , Jul extension y 19 th , of is the one
law of divorce to persons who from incompatability of temper or character cannot Surel live more together valid ground without for making divorce themselves cannot and be found all about than them the miserable desire of * y
both steps What , parties that , more neither to demoralizing be released party shall , the can act law be upon imag taking impulse ined care , than so nor the to be frame forced coerced the cohabitation by preliminary the other of ..
two persons of whom the judge in pronouncing judgment thus sums up : thirty 11 The years history they of the were marrie continuall d life y of quarrelling this couple , and was they most broug melanchol ht up y a . large For
famil effect y . of But children he could , upon not whom on their that examp account le must separate have them had . a most Lord injurious Stowell observed in " Evans versus Evans" that one wished to separate those who
feeling wished , disinclination to for be it separated said that to cohabit , a but separation the . That law could did disinclination not not be allow granted must him in be to consequence founde indulge d that of a mere upon
reasons which the law approved . In his opinion , such reasons did not exist at the time this suit institutedand he must therefore dismiss the *
was , husband The Bucks from _Advertiser it . "—Judgment and A . y for lesbury the respondent News of Jul . y 3 rd , while congratulating . . ,
been its readers remove in d b a leading the operation article , of on the the New amount Divorce of Act social , calls misery attention , which to has the there y is for further modification arising out of the altered
necessity some relations assumes a of wife husb to ands be entirel and wives under . the " ' One control of these of her , the husband rule of whenever law which he y
is present , is so strikingly illustrated by a case at the recent Quarter , Sessions , fessed that we London venture thieve to call swere especial indicted attention for housebreaking to it . Two , men and , with evidentl them y pro two - _'
indicted unhapp female il companions y by too the common respective who , among had names live persons of d their with of male them that associates class on the . The footing probabl women which for were the is
very sufficient reason that they were known by no other ; , but with y strange inconsistency The evidence , left they little were doubt described that these in the women indictment had taken as an ' single active women part in . ' -
law the as robbery laid down " and in b the the disposal noble Chairman of the stolen , and _property not disputed . _Nevertheless , was that , the if there were presumptive y proof of their being married to the male prisoners
these found they must women all the be acquitted wer prisoners e justl . y guilty The punished j . ury Common found for their that sense they share would were in the not seem crime so to married , urge and w that and ith less than that of the who
equal lanned justice and probabl their y punishment carried out was the robbery severe . At the same time men , it is ap ment somewhat not for startling housebreaking reflection , but that for these a crime women which are is now not suffering recognised imprison as suclj - ! .
by th e English law , the crime of not getting married . - We may hope that
430 Passing Events.
430 PASSING EVENTS .
-
-
Citation
-
English Woman’s Journal (1858-1864), Aug. 1, 1858, page 430, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/ewj/issues/ewj_01081858/page/70/
-