Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 Husband and Wife Subject_2 Divorce Subject_3 Adultery Subject_4 Lenocinium. Facts: A husband who having reasonable grounds for suspecting his wife of infidelity, follows her and keeps a watch upon her movements in order to detect her in the act of adultery, is not barred by lenocinium from founding, for the purpose of obtaining divorce, on an act of adultery in which he may in this way succeed in detecting her.
Observations per Lord Young on the case of Marshall v. Marshall , May 20, 1881, 8 R. 702 .
The Lord Ordinary granted decree of divorce, and decerned for £50 in name of damages against the co-defender, with expenses.
The defender reclaimed, and argued that the adultery was not proved, and, even if it was, the conduct of the pursuer amounted to lenociniuM. It showed a wish that his wife might commit adultery that he might divorce her. Divorce was a remedy to the injured party. Volenti non fit injuria.
In making these observations I am only desirous to guard myself against being supposed to subscribe to any such view as that contended for by the defender's counsel.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.