Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

5 articles on this Page






AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE. In the Divorce Court, in London, the cause of Loftus v. Loftus" has been heard, and was a peti- tion by Lord Henry Loftus for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent alleged that the petitioner had been guilty of cruelty, and prayed for a judicial separation. The respondent's case was first opened, the affirmative of the issue of cruelty being upon her. She was formerly the. wife of the Earl of Seafield, who died in 1855. She after- wards married Major Massey, who died in 1862, and by whom she had a child. She had a life annuity of 2,0001. settled on her by Lord Seafield, together with the use of Grant Lodge, near Elgin, in Scotland. In 1862 she nade the acquaintance ,of Lord Henry Loftus, and he afterwards proposed marriage,, to her, and was accepted. The marriage took place on the 5th of July, 1864, at Bray, in Ireland. Her property was settled upon her. Lady Seafield stated that before the marriage she explained her position as to property to,. Lord Henry. He said that all he wanted was her love, and to protect her and her child. She did not charge him with any personal violence, but she complained that 116 had habitually insulted her, and treated her with so much indignity that her health was injured, and she suffered severely from nervous attacks and palpitations of the heart. She said that he smoked and drank too muck and that ha never contributed 6d. towards the household Jxpenses. His language to her was rude and insulting, and lib often abused her late husband, Major Massey, and "ceiled h \m a misera- ble cad." After staying a short time at Bray they came to London and resided at the Alexandra Hotel. They after- wards went to Grant Lodge, and then in the early part of 1865 they returned to Bray. She was very ill there with palpitation of the heart. One night lie jumped out of bed, blew out the nightlight, locked the door, and said, "Now you cannot go out of the room." She was dreadfully frightened and very ill, and after that she refused to sleep with him. They slept in different rooms, except on one occasion in Dublin, at the time of the Prince of Wales's visit to Ireland, when they were obliged to occupy the same room for a few nights in consequence of the hotel being full. On those nights she left his bed after he was asleep, and passed the greater part of the night in the adjoining sitting-room. That was because he always had brandy when he came home and then he became abusive. Slietherl came to England and resided for some time at Norwood, and in June, 1865, Lord Henry came to see her there. He spoke about a separation. He had often told her that he never wanted to marry her, and that she had hunted him down. He said they had better separate quietly. They next stayed at an hotel in Clifford-street, still occupying separate apartments. He was in the habit of coming home late, as usual, and continually abused her aud com- plained of her. In July, 1865, she went to Scotland by the advice of her doctor for change of air. He: came down for the shooting on the 12th of Auaust, and stayed till September or October. She communicated to him that she thought she was with child, and he then in- suited her by suggesting that she had been unfaithful to him. He went to London in October and returned to Grant Lodge at the end of December. He abused and insulted her while her sister was in the house. She was attacked with, hysterics while reading prayers, and he afterwards came into her room and said be had been a brute and he would try to comfort her. In March, 1806, she refused to sleep with him because she had palpitation of the heart. He banged at the door of the room in which she was sleeping, and she opened it, as she was afraid the servants would hear him. lIe asked her to "come back to his nuptial bed," and seized her by the arms and pushed her across the room. She said, "If you don't let me go, I will scream." He let her go, and pushed her into another room, and she locked the door. There was a mark left on her arms. They had never since slept together. In April, 1866, she went to live at Norwood. He had visited her there, and on one occasion he went down on his knees and accused himself of being unjust and cruel, and said all he could, to show his anxiety for a reconciliation. She said, It would be a long time before she could feel as she had felt towards him, and when respect ceased love also ceased." On the 29th of May he insulted her as she was going to the railway station, and on the journey to London, in the rail- way carriage, he abused her and her poor husband (Major Massey), and shook his fist in her face, and said she was his wife, and he would teach her to obey him. He was violent in his manner, and she was afraid he would strike her. Her health had been affected by living with him, and she was apprehensive of the consequences if she returned. In cross- examination Lady Seafield denied that she ever irritated Lord Henry by making comparisons between him and her former husband to his disadvantage. She also denied that she had separated from him in consequence of his pecuniary difficulty and of his bankruptcy. She said he had utterly deceived her as to his property. He told her that he had an income of 300l. a year besides SOme quarries which would put 40,OOOl. into his pocket. ~Dr" vPrc*' t*ie- resP°hdent's medical attendant, proved that since her marriage with Lord Henry she had suffered from ?ri feT,and palpitations of the heart. He said ment a riei'vous or excitable tempera- At the sitting of the Court, on Saturday, a consulta- b 114W'^S between the learned counsel, and after a short delay it was announced that the parties had agreed to certain terms of separation, and on the execution of a deed carrying those terms into effect the petition would be withdrawn. Dr. Spinks. said Lord Henry Loftus was very anxious it should be stated that he denied having been guilty of any kind of personal violence. The Judge-Ordinary said he was very unwilling to prejudge a case, but as far as the evidence went he thought it did not amount to legal cruelty. It was fair to observe that the Court had_ only heard one side, and although Lady Seafield had given her evidence in a manner whith entitled her to credit at the hands of the Court, still it must be remembered that in matri- monial disputes the recollection of the parties was not always accurate, and the Court was prepared to hear a somewhat different version from the petitioner. The trial was accordingly adjourned until Michael. mas Term.

[No title]