Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page

-"--------.-_.-..-.-..-'..,.---"----...-.©mr…

IMPERIAL" PARLIAMENT.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS ON THE…

"JIM MYERS" & THE "FIERY DRAGON"…

ANOTHER MURDER THROUGH DRINK.

EXTRAORDINARY MEETING IN LONDON.

THE DEAN OF CARLISLE AND THE…

THE REAL PITH OF THE BUDGET…

""i A MISERABLE MARRIAGE.'

News
Cite
Share

A MISERABLE MARRIAGE. In the Divorce Court the suit of Cooke v. Cooke, being a suit instituted by Mrs. Cooke against her husband, for a judicial separation on the ground of his cruelty, has been heard:— The parties were married in July, 1858, the lady being the daughter of Mr. Percival, a provision merchant. It was pleaded that after a short intimacy the respondent introduced his father to Mr. Percival, and spoke in such grand terms of his wealth that the marriage was allowed to take place without the lady's father asking for any settlement at all. It was alleged that the eyes of Mr. Percival were opened on the wedding day, when the person who called himself Mr. Cooke's father asked him to give the young couple 1001. to go away with. He thought this -rather odd, I considering the asserted wealth of thEIr parties, but he gave them 10?. After their departure the senior Cooke visited Mr. Percival and obtained a loss of 100?., on the ground that by some extraordinary accident his j steward had not sent up his rents lately. The petitioner I and her husband subsequently took up their residence I in London, and it was alleged that a fortnight after the marriage Mr. Cooke began to treat her with coarseness and filthiness of language that when she was pregnant he struck her a violent blow across the face, and knocked her down, and afterwards struck her on the breast, constantly spat in her face, dug his nails in her arms so that the marks were visible; and at the time of her confinement, left her without any advice or pre- paration of any kind. She had been accustomed to be a regular attendant at church and upon her express- j ing a desire to go there, he said that nobody went to church but bad women, and threw her Bible in the fire. ) His language was generally brutal and disgusting, and at length having come to her bed side with a brace of loaded pistols, and threatened to inflict some bodily injury UDon her or relations, she left his house im- mediately she waf ufiiciently recovered to leave her bed, and had been living ever since with her father. It seemed that the respondent was continually quarrelling I with and abusing his wife about her father having promised him money and not riveni it. Mr. James Percival deposed that the respondent told him he had formed an attachment to his daughter, and introduced a person whom he called his father. That person said his son was in a very high position, and he allowed him 51. 5s. a week, and upon the marriage he would pay in 5001. to witness's bankers. The respond- ent had previously told Mr. Percival that his father was a man of for^ane, with estates in Herefordshire and in that he himself was pursuing his studies in the Temple, because he did not wish to be idle. The marriage took place at St. George's the Martyr, in Southwark, London. When they came home from church and after the company had left the room, the person who represented Mr. Cooke's father said, "What are you going to give them, now they are going away?" Witness was surprised at the question, and replied that he had no money in the house. He afterwards bor- rowed 101, and gave it to the respondent. The couple then went on a marriage trip, and Mr. Cooke, sen., subsequently called on witness and said he could not sell the property to pay in the 5001. as promised with- out a sacrifice, but that it would be a great convenience if he could obtain a loan of 10m. He was induced to lend the money, and the party called two days after- wards to say he would invite him down to shooting in September, but witness had never seen nor heard anything more of him. When the respondent returned from his wedding tour he made several applications to witness for money, but they were refused. He, however, provided money at the time of his daughter's confinement. When the petitioner left her husband it was quite with witness's consent. Cross-examined When I first met you at Margate pier I did not invite you to a goose dinner. You may have come up to town from Margate in the same boat with my daughters, but I never put them under your care. I am not a bill-dis- counter. I allowed your visits because I thought you a res- pectable man. When I gave you the 10?. you did not give it me back again. You said, Thank you," and put it in your pocket. The respondent continued for some time putting a variety of irrelevant questions to this witness, of which the above may be taken as a specimen, and he was frequently stopped by the learned judge, and repri- manded, for the violent abuse and libellous nature of his questions.. The petitioner was then examined, and she confirmed in every particular the statement made by counsel in .her behalf. She was also subjected to a long cross- examination, but only with an unfavourable result to 1;he respondent, who was at length stopped by the learned judge from puttihg any further questions, after having1 been once threatened to be committed. In the course of the cross-examination Mr. Cooke referred to the following lines which he had written to his wife in the spring of last year as a proof of affection "TO POLLY COOKE, vice 3IAKIA PEKCIVATJ. Ye gods inspire me as I pen this lay, To greet Maria on her natal day Infuse the fires of poetry sublime Into my soul, my head, or pen, And guide my rhyme. Say tis humble, yet twdl tell a tale Of that monarchs cannot purchase 'tis ne'er for sale, Of love unsullied, spotless', pure As angels wings that ever must endure, Even tdl the loved one and the devotee, Together mingle in their common clay. I )e&restPo]ly,—Accept this tribute of affection to this thy n atal day. Oh, may you have in any, many happy returns of it; and as year after year rolls on, n^y they laid you res- pected. and happy in the midst of those pledges of our mutual affection which it may please an all-wise Providence to be stow upon such, is Ule of COSMOPOLITAN." The servant of the parties was examined in corrobo- ration, of Mrs Cooke's statement, and her evidence was not in the slightest degree shaken by the cross- examination to which she was subjected by the re- SPAftt^r some further evidence, the respondent made a rambli ng statement to the jury, which was listened to with the neatest impatience, and then proceeded to call wi tnesses in support of has plea, that he had lived on verjr affectionate terms with the petitioner. The re- spondei at commented upon the evidence, and contended that it showed that, instead 6f victimising others, he had bee n victimised himself. The j my found a verdicb for Mrs. Cooke, and Sir C. Crest swell decreed the judicial separation.