Opinion
12-14-1888
LEYLAND v. LEYLAND.
J. R. English, for complainant. Foster M. Voorhees, for defendant.
Bill for divorce.
J. R. English, for complainant. Foster M. Voorhees, for defendant.
BIRD, V. C. This bill was filed to procure a divorce from the wife on the ground of adultery committed with one Hathaway. The proofs show that on the night of Octobers, 1887, the complainant and two policemen were watching the house of the complainant, in which the defendant still resided, with the view of ascertaining whether or not the supposed paramour could be found there. Late that night Leyland opened the front door, and, finding the door to the parlor (adjoining which was the bed-room of his wife) locked, he forced it open; but while he was in the act of thus gaining admittance, he heard his wife saying, "Hurry, Jim; hurry, Jim," and as he entered the room he saw a man leaving the bed-room, which was Hathaway. He effected his escape through the kitchen, from the house, but was soon after caught by the police. So far the parties agree as to the occurrences on that occasion, and certain it is that, standing alone, they make a very strong case against the defendant. This is especially true when it is considered that the intercourse between Mrs. Leyland and Hathaway had been of a character to arouse no little suspicion. But an effort is made to show that all this is consistent with innocence, and was prompted by the most chivalric friendship, such as no brave or honorable man could avoid extending to any female acquaintance. From this standpoint, then, the case must be carefully considered. The theory of the defense is that Leyland was cruel to his wife, and neglected her, and made many false charges against her, and was becoming so excited over the consideration of supposed wrongs that it was not safe for Mrs. Leyland to meet him unless some one was present to protect her from his apprehended violence. They had disagreed, and he had separated from her in July, two months before the principal event with which we shall deal However, he continued to call on her occasionally, for the purpose of supplying her with some means for her support in the interval. The first question is, if friendship moved Hathaway to stand guard, and to undertake the task of protecting Mrs. Leyland against her husband, why did he flee so precipitately at the very first approach of Leyland, even before he knew whether his mission was one of peace or war; or, indeed, before he knew who the intruder was,—whether Leyland or not? Was that the time for the manly soul, clad in innocence, to flee? His crime made him a coward, and his flight was the highest proof of his guilt. But his excuse is that Leyland had come to do violence. Certainly; but that is the alleged excuse for Hathaway's presence. Then why did he flee in the hour of peril to this undefended and helpless female? The hour and the man had come according to expectation, but the would-be hero had fled. He no doubt felt that the danger which he now would have the court believe was intended for Mrs. Leyland would be inflicted upon himself if he did not escape. The argument might end here, but it was gravely urged that this impetuous flight was after all a most prudent thing, and entirely consistent with innocence and the highest sense of duty to and regard for Mrs. Leyland. This view rests upon the implication that Mrs. Leyland was not only in danger of bodily harm, but Hathaway also, from Leyland. From what source? There is no proof of the presence of any one, except Leyland, who had ever shown theleast inclination to harm Hathaway, and it is extremely doubtful whether either Mrs. Leyland or Hathaway knew anything either of the presence of Leyland or of the two policemen in attendance until Leyland began to break the parlor door. How could they know? Was not Leyland there on a mission of discovery? Were not the policemen employed to aid in the discovery of a crime which can only be detected by the most secret devices? "Would they, or either of them, advertise their coming, and so warn the supposed offenders of their approach? But let it be admitted that Hathaway knew the policemen were there; then the inquiry: Why did he not call upon them for aid? But it is said that the policemen were hostile also; but not to the innocent. The true and honest hero would have surrendered himself to the public authorities to have saved his supposed victim from the hands of the violent. Certainly this course would not have been so perilous as to flee as he did, thereby giving color to the gravest of all charges against him. Surely the police would have protected him and the wife of Leyland from violence. But Hathaway left Mrs. Leyland to her fate. He never so much as attempted to carry her along in his flight, and so, in case of extremity, be on hand to stand between her and danger. Instead of exhibiting at any time the slightest proofs of the nobility of soul, worthy of the mission which he pretends he was on, all was haste, secrecy, confusion, and cowardice. He did not stop in his effort to escape until he was arrested and detained by superior force, and, after being detained, struggled until he freed himself, once more to be again captured. His clothes were not buttoned, and his necktie and collar were off. Nor can I find anything in the conduct of Mrs. Leyland to sustain her theory by which she attempts to explain the presence of Hathaway. She neither endeavored to persuade Hathaway to remain to protect her, nor did she cry out for help. On the contrary, she urged Hathaway to "hurry." She made no attempt to escape from the supposed rage of her husband, but she rather sought a conflict with him, by interposing to prevent him from pursuing Hathaway. To effect this she laid hold of him with both arms, and then broke the lamp which he had lighted, thus leaving all in darkness. Was she afraid of her husband? She was the hero of this occasion. When Leyland and the police had gone in pursuit of Hathaway, she hunted up a revolver, and, standing in the open door, discharged all the cartridges in the midnight air. I will advise a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill.