2o8 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



the husband was fully entitled to a 

 divorce. 



On the part of the wife, the 

 proof of adultery was not denied ; 

 but the defence set up was this, 

 that her innocence was clear up to 

 the time of her husband's deserting 

 her ; that he did so at the instiga- 

 tion of his father ; and in concert 

 with him, by refusing to allow her 

 a maintenance, had endeavoured to 

 drive her into the commission of 

 adultery, that he might avail him- 

 self of it to obtain a divorce. It 

 was likewise stated in the evidence 

 of Mr. Dunbar, the adulterer, and 

 the wife's mother, that in the 

 course of several applications they 

 had made to Mr. Reeves, sen. and 

 some confidential friends of his, for 

 a maintenance for his son's wife, 

 they had offered to comply with 

 the demand, upon condition of 

 being enabled, by her committing 

 an act of adultery, to obtain a di- 

 vorce, and had unequivocally re- 

 fused contributing towards hersup- 

 port upon any etiier terms. This, 

 however, was most positively con- 

 tradicted by Mr. Reeves and his 

 friends, in their evidence, as was 

 likewise a further suggestion, that 

 they had endeavoured to entrap 

 the wife into adultery by the em- 

 ployment of persons for that pur- 

 pose. It was contended, however, 

 that there was still sufficient proof 

 in the abandonment and denial of 

 maintenance, to warrant the infer, 

 ence, that there was a collusion be- 

 tween the father and son, to ob- 

 tain a divorce ; an inference consi- 

 derably strengthened by the cir- 

 cumstance, that ail the acts of 

 adultery proved were subsequent 

 to the execution of the document 

 authorising the suit : and there- 

 fore, as the husband was himself 



the activ« partner of his own dis- 

 honour, and the wife had fallen 

 the victim of vice, merely from the 

 pressure of want, occasioned by 

 desertion, he was not now to 

 claim a remedy to which he could 

 only be entitled, as long as his owa 

 conduct remained unimpeached. 

 In support of this argument, the 

 case of Manby v. Manby, and 

 Mitchelson v. Mitchelson, were re- 

 ferred to, as instances in which the 

 husband, though the wife's infi- 

 delity was proved, lost his divorce 

 upon the same grounds. 



To this it was replied, that the 

 abandonment was justifiable, upon 

 the reasonable suppositions proved 

 to have been entertained by the 

 husband of his wife's guilt ; and 

 thougii he was afterwards con- 

 vinced of the fact, and it became of 

 public notoriety to all who were 

 acquainted with the parties, yet 

 there might have been wanting 

 that species of proof, without 

 which it would have been unsafe 

 to have ventured on a suit for a 

 divorce. It was therefore more 

 reasonable to suppose, that the au« 

 thority to commence such a suit in 

 this case, was given more with a 

 view to a prospective proof of the 

 wife's past adultery, than in anti- 

 cipation of its commission being 

 intended to be forced upon her. 

 The cases cited did not apply to 

 the present one, that of Mitchelson ' . 

 being one in which there was a 

 failure ofproof of the crime charg- 

 ed ; and in that of Manby, the 

 divorce was refused,in consequence 

 of the husband having neglected to 

 commence any proceedings until 

 after five )'ears' acquiescence in his 

 wife's living publicly in a state of 

 adultery. In this case, it was not 

 pretended, that the husband was 



