London Legal Letter. and the unsavoriness of the details of the sor did story of their domestic infelicities caused the court to be crowded every day. while hundreds of people, long before the doors were opened, struggled for admittance. The trial lasted for nearly two weeks, and every night crowds gathered in the streets, no matter what the weather, to see the parties and the notable witnesses come out and drive away in their carriages. From a professional point of view that which struck the observer most forcibly was the shocking revelation of indecency which the washing of so much' dirty linen in public occasioned. Those who were present in the court were ladies mostly, and ladies of social position. They were there, not only willingly but eagerly, and therefore deserve no pity if they were obliged to hear details of incidents which no man willingly speaks of in the presence of ladies. But the papers were obliged to publish the text of the addresses of counsel and the evi dence of witnesses, and columns filled with this nauseous matter were daily read by hun dreds of thousands of women and young chil dren. American divorces are a by-word in England, but contrasted with trials of the Hartopp sort the procedure in America is vastly superior to that in England. In one country the evidence, for the most part, heard by a referee on privacy, while on the other it is given in the fullest glare of publicity with display head lines and double-leaded type. Sir Charles Hartopp failed to prove his wife's adultery, and Lady Hartopp likewise failed on her counter-charges against her hus band. In England the husband must prove adultery, but the wife must go one step further—prove adultery and cruelty, or adul tery and desertion, in order to get a divorce. As both parties in this case made the neces sary charges, but failed in the necessary evi dence, it is difficult to conjecture upon what basis a niodus vivcndi can be established for the future in the Hartopp household. It is conceivable that the American method of
93
simplifying the grounds for divorce is better for the health of the community than the forcing of husband and wife who have mu tually charged each other with the gravest offences against the marital tie, but have failed to support their charges, to go on liv ing together, or pretending to do so. In the third of the cases referred to, known as the "Taff Vale case," the Taff Yale Railway Company brought an action for damages against the Trade Union, to which their employes, who had gone out on a strike belonged, for damages resulting from the strike. The aid of the Chancery Courts was invoked during the strike for an injunction to restrain the Union and its offi cers and servants from interfering with the management and operations of the railway. The defence was that the act complained of was not the act of the Union, but of individ uals, its members, and that the Union was not responsible for what they did. The court of first instance granted Hie relief prayed for, and this decree was approved of by the Appeal Court, and also by the House of Lords. The company then began its ac tion on the common law side for damages. It was an interesting struggle between em ployer and employes, and it lasted for nearly three weeks, at the end of which the special jury found for the plaintiffs and the question of damages was referred. There will prob ably be an appeal by the Trade Union, as the result is of vital importance, not only to this particular union, but to all trade unions. If the verdict stands and the damages claimed are awarded to the railway company the treasury of the Trade Union will be bank rupt. A large number of counsel were em ployed upon both sides, and it is a subject matter of congratulation that although there were constant opportunities to appeal to prejudice and to import politics into the pro ceedings, not one of the counsel, several of whom are not without political ambition, yielded to the temptation. The opening
