AN EXTRAORDINARY DOMESTIC DISPUTE.

Evening Star, Issue 4290, 25 November 1876, Page 4

AN EXTRAORDINARY DOMESTIC DISPUTE.

At the Dublin Police Court'an extraordinary case of assault was heard lately. The plaintiff is a young lady of prepossessing appearance, wife of- Mr 0. Neville Baggot, sister of Sir William Verner, and cousin of Lord Longford. Thedafendant is Mr John Baggot, Justice-oHhe Peace of Roscommon. ' ''Mrs .Baggbt ii£he* examination deposed that she.n'a/fafoTtiftie of l L ! 1G,000. WheVshe : he was very rich; After their marriage, 'which took place in 1874, they went to reside in London, and afterwards came. to Jpngstown. The defendant, .who is her husband s brother, came to visit ,;tftenvajp#is.:Anglesey Hotel, Kingstown, in January lasftand. het/Jmsband's manned sX Once changed towards her. She was kept Jout of bis room, and on the* Bth January shei •only obtained access by means of ; a ladder slaced5 laced the wall under, hjuau \jdn- , ow. When she'got into her husjjiahd's room, she found; the defendant atfd ' Dr, Buckley with him. She shewed her husband a. letter she had received, and asked him to read it,but defendant..said he should not, and ordered Mrs Baggot out of the room. Witness then proceeded—l refused to go, and he then knocked me down into the fire- ■-•'••■ place, and pushed Me violently and threw me to the ground. The doctor and theide- ;' fendanfc then dragged hie : from the room, Mr John Baggot remarking tnat I should not go into my husband's room." My "dress was torn, and I was covered with bruises, which I showed to my servant next day. The following day, when I again went to see my husband, the door of his room was looked. ■•"' I:sat outside for seven hours, hut failed to • get admission. The following day I saw him ." tor a couple of minutes, having again gained admission by the ladder. My husband used . insulting language; to me, and I left.; We continued to reside in Kingstown until the •: 22nd-"df June. During the interval I saw my husband a few times, but always in the presence of Mr John Baggot, or some third party* On the 20th . of June I accompanied my sister to Chester on her . return to London, and,when there I heard that my husband had. been removed by his ■'; brothers. My sister and I immediately returned and discovered that he had. beent ; taken to a place called Merville, near '/,; Booterstown;-! went there on the 22nd, v but was refused admittance by my husband's ".' fcervahtS. The next day I returned t3 Merville with my child and my maid, but the \ door was closed in my face. After some tune I got into the house, through the Jkitchen, and took possession of an unqocupied bedroom. Mr John Baggot afterwards entered the apartment, and said I should not have it because he had selected it for himself. I said I intended to remain wherel . ? Was., He said he would seon put a stop to that, called on my maid to pull off his boots, nndressed,' and went into bed, and commended to laugh at what he had done. He said he would hick-.me and my maid do-vyn- ■» Bteirs ; that be: would :kick the lifeout df me, and that hi*; Mends; would not knpw me, I disreputable. During Ijhe first month that I resided at Merville I did ;■'•- notsSSmy huflband; butl have seen Mm fqur times .since the .23rd June. Hiß room door is kep#l6oke*d. the defendant, and even the windows are barred. • £ ' had no sitting-room there,, and was obliged to visitors from my bedroom .vjwinopw.-.. On the" 15th , of July 1 •heard: a noise in the room adjoining mine, "which had previously been kept locked, and I asked what was3bei»9 dime./ ; Oneiof. the servants replied, " putting-up a bed for a woman that ' bringing hSfci" ~. net be, and asked •fiomeMenjto piano, with Itho view orjcqn- .. vjsrtihg the ifeaHntd a sittmg-rooin. : *-Mr the themnbt'to obey nie. *- Hie men'leftfWd 3 the defendant locked iky-. ,_ maid.and -into th>'bedroom, say-' ' %g,\«Npyr f L M you" wishto. get the window." When we were leOiit," -i »ianoupsT;airfl,butdefen^t#jfiWi interfered T

pushed us both about, and called me a " Jeste-1 *&L*"by Qaa " *?£. a^ajrj^hoy^and aaaressing the strange woman whom he had brought into the 'tfons&said,.." This, is! the mistress of the house ; she will take you for" a laundry-maid if you wait a place after I have turned you out of this." -He said that my long" crane neck would very soon be broken, and that he would take good'eare to Bee it done. That frightened me very much. We werelocked up; from three to six o'clock, when I forced, the door with a jhisel. I went ; into town on the 17th, and on my return I found » polioe?coustable in the house. He had been brought in to ptit us out of possession, but when I told him that I intended arranging the matter by a summons the officer left. J

Cross-examined : On the '3rd of .August, I Lonapiv.but 'X don't know where it is. I was brought there by my husband* There were ,tw<» witnesses, whom I do-not know, ; present. .1 returned to my own house after the ceremony, and continued to reside' there until I was again married from my mother's residence and in tbei-Alexandra Hotel on the Bth/ Augueft, ; 1875. Atthat time ray husband was partially paralysed, but'could walk with assistance. My family'did hot know .of the' first marriage. My child was born on the 22nd October. 1875. Q.—Did your husband complain shortly after you were married that you neglected him? A.— ■Never. He never complained that I went out without his permissioa, and as a matter of fact I never did go out aleue. My husband never gave me any reason for his conduct. He said it was on account of my behaviour, but I did not know what he meant. I did not neglect or go out without his leave. In further crossexamination she admitted that she had been Chester by two officers, but she was then under the escort of! her cousin, Lord Longford. She had received a letter suggesting i a separation; and when the went into -her husband'sroom to ask what it meant, the defendant and the doctor dragged her out of -the room. She did not know that the woman whom the defendant brought to the; house was her husband's sister. She did thflbw her things out of the window, because she- did not understand a stranger being introduced into the house in that fashion. The defendant, said, she was infamous,,and that, she migftt'go out On the streets'if she liked.' He told her her conduct was little short of murder. She telegraphed to Norway for her brother, Sir William Verner, and he came over to protect her. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, who was awarded LI #OO and L 1,500 a-year, and her fortune of LIO,OOO was-AtileoVon her child.