21st July 1861

ISRAEL VERSUS CRINOLINE

Many of the rabbis of Cracow and the neighbourhood have condemned the use of crinoline, and interdicted females so attired from appearing at the synagogue. At Tarnow however, a few days ago, some Jewesses, leaning on the arms of their male friends, boldly presented themselves at the synagogue in the proscribed garment, But a number of low Jews, arming themselves with sticks and knives, drove them away, and compelled them to seek refuge in an adjacent house. Several persons, fearing the women would be injured, placed themselves before the house. A fierce conflict ensued, and blood was shed on both sides, but nobody was killed. The police did not interfere.

SCUM FROM THE DIVORCE COURT

In the Court for Divorce yesterday, the disgusting case of Farquharson v Farquharson was heard on adjudication. This was a suit instituted by the wife the daughter of the Rev Henry Buckley, rector of Hartshorn, against her husband, a captain in her Majesty’s 24th Regiment of Foot, for a dissolution of marriage by reason of cruelty and adultery.

From the statement of the learned counsel, and the evidence adduced, a more painful and disgusting case has never been recorded in the annals of this court.

The petitioner, a young lady of considerable attractions, was affianced to the respondent, a member of a highly respectable family. A fortnight before his marriage, which took place on the 14th of June 1857, he cohabited with a prostitute, and became diseased, and in that state married the lady and communicated the disease to her, coolly the following morning telling her to use a syringe and lotion, which, he stated, was recommended by his friend, Sir James Clarke, to counteract the disease.

He went on persisting in a course of profligacy, in visiting the Turkish Divans and other places of aristocratic profligacy in the Haymarket, and there became acquainted with two of its frequenters, with whom he also had adulterous intercourse—Amy Laurence, in Tachbrook-street, and Caroline Gray, in Oxenden-street, notwithstanding that he still cohabited with his wife who, in February 1860, was delivered of a child at the residence of her parents. The child died a fortnight after birth, and according to the medical evidence of the surgeon who attended the lady in her confinement, the child had been conceived in a state of gonorrhoea and syphilis, the first coming from the mother and the other coming from the father.

The knowledge of these distressing facts came to the ears of the woman’s parents, who taxed the respondent with the enormity of his offence towards their daughter and told him he was a ruffian and a coward, and the murderer of his child, upon which he abjectly confessed that he had known he was diseased at the time of his marriage and had had connections with prostitutes at Aldershot, Portsmouth and Dublin.

From that time, the 13th of April, his wife was taken from him, and has ever since lived under the protection of her father and mother. He was, however, allowed to remain in the house for a fortnight, as he merely asked for a place of refuge.

The evidence of these sickening details of married live were fully established, and the learned Judge, in pronouncing a decree nisi for a dissolution of the marriage, said there were scarcely words strong enough to condemn the disgraceful and disgusting conduct of the respondent—he was a disgrace to human nature.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s