A BRACE OF DIVORCE CASES.

Evening Star, Issue 4128, 20 May 1876, Page 4

A BRACE OF DIVORCE CASES.

The ‘ San Francisco Bulletin ’ writes Thursday (24th February), Emily K. Farnh*m and John H. Famham were divorced from each other the second time. In the first proceeding for severing the silken strings of matrimony, the wife was the plaintiff, charging the defendant with many failings, among them a failure to provide. After the decree separating - them was ordered, they met again, courted anew, forgot the past, made fine promises for the tuture, and were married the second time in December, 1869. Now the wife, again the plaintiff, charges her husband with failure to provide, and adultery, and defendant charges her with extreme cruelty, through which life is rendered miserable. Upon a review of the testimony the Court finds that the plaintiff’s

allegations of adultery and failure to provide have not the shadow of evidence to sustain i .them, while the countercharges of the defendant are supported by ample and convincing testimony. The Judge, in reviewing the case, said in substance lam satisfied that Mrs Famham boasted that she would ruin

her husband, and also declared that she would render his life miserable. The defendant is accused of .using towards his wife violence, vulgarity, - and profanity. There is evidence showing that he is a mild-man-nered man, free from vulgarity and profanity in his language. As to violence, it is not shown that he used any. The only thing he used towards his wife was a cane-bottomed chair to shield his head from dishes, glasses, and other articles that she was accustomed to hurl after him. He would simply hold up a chair in order to retreat safely through the doorway of the house to the barn. It is in evidence that he passed several nights in the bam to escape her violence. On one occasion ! she wounded him in the head with a castor. She testified that he threw the castor first, and she caught it and hurled it back. However conflicting the evidence may be as to who threw the castor first, it is plain that he received a gash in the temple. “ I was curious,” said the judge, “to know why they married a second time, and upon inquiring I found it a case of mutual infatuation, in which each one loved and feared the other. During tne first and second marriages these little conflicts appeared at frequent intervals. I am convinced that she is guilty of extreme cruelty, and has rendered his life miserable, and therefore the divorce is granted. As to alimony, I think Famham should pay some-thing-for the indulgence of the second infatuation, but I will make the sum small. The order is that he pay 250 dol. to plaintiff’s counsel.” At the sitting of the Divorce Court at Wellington on Monday, Smith v. Smith and King was a case furnished by the Wellington district. The petitioner, who is a Chinese storekeeper residing at Otaki, stated that he was married at Wanganui to a person named Catherine Darling M'Cormack on 6th March, 1875. After being married they remained at Wanganui for two days, when they went to ' Otaki together. They lived there together till the 26th March, 1875, when his wife told him she wished to go to Wellington to see her friends. He gave her Lll, and she said she would return in a week. At the end of that time she telegraphed to him to the effect that she had lost all her money, and wanted some more to take her home. He then sent her L2 to bring her home. She did hot go back, but scut the following letter to him :

■Wellington - , 4th April, 1875. Dear William, —I now write you these few lines, hoping you ore in good health and good spirits, for when you get this letter you will Lave to be in good spirits. William Smith, when I married you I did not love you, but thought that perhaps love would come, but I fennd how bard it is to live with one I did not like. William, lam leaving you for ever, and it will be worse than madness for you to follow me. There is one of my relations turned np, and my uncle says (for he it is) that he will sooner kill me than 1 shall ever go back to live with you. He says I should have married oue like myself, so although you arc my husband my uncle will not ose S'ght of me or give mo a chance of coming back I am going to Auckland. 'I he steamer starts in an hour from this, so by the time you will get this I will be far away from you and Wellington. So all y xx cau do is to pray for me. It you like you cau get a divorce from mo. Then you will ho able to get married again, and I hope jou will get some one better worthy of you than me. It the people of Otaki ask you where I am gone, you can tell them somewhere on business. When I get the chance you will hear from me. I must say that I did not love you, but you were so kind to me ihat I could not find it in my heart to leave you, but I am compolled to do so, so you must forgive. Do not think of wasting your money to follow me, for my uncle says if ever you come within his reach you will either kill him or he will kill you; so the he.it thing you can do is to keep away from his displeasure os much as possible. I would ndviso you to get a devorce from me. for I am sure we will never see each other again. I have no mo eto say. Time is «n the wing. Death to yon and me if you follow. Farewell for ever,— Kattie Darling.”

On searching her box he found that she had had a child by a man named King before they were married; on 4th January he received another letter from hia wife, asking him to send her her parents’ likenesses; in that letter she also said she did not mean what she had said in her first letter about not loving him; if he would only say he forgave her, she would he happy; he had married her on the recommendation of a Mrs Macaulay. The rule nisi was granted.