Wives & husbands testifying against each other

[aelfric]

If the "divorce" was granted by the Court of arches I think it would have been "a mensa et thoro" - from bed and board. This enabled/compelled the couple to live apart but did not end the marriage.
I don't have the timescale but wives were originally not able to give evidence againsst their husbands. I think this was changed in the 19th century, though they still couldn't be compelled, and I seem to remember it was abolished later

[ercall]

Thank you Aelfric,
I've checked back through my papers and it is listed as a "matrimonial case, divorce, adultery" on the Lambeth Palace Library records where all these ecclesiastical marital disputes are located.  I'm not certain of the procedure - whether all divorces needed a private Act of Parliament, but then the Court of Arches handled what were basically formal separations (yet it is catalogued as divorce etc) - no doubt it was a procedure far less expensive for the parties.  For this couple I've seen no Act of Parliament for a divorce, so I suspect you're right, that it was a formal separation.  The wife I notice didn't remarry until the husband was dead - which might seem to confirm that.  This seems to answer the circumstances I'm seeing: the couple were rather "separated" in legal terms (but not in the eyes of God) and were in a kind of marital limbo.  Not free to remarry and, certainly the wife, would have been restricted in what she might do without the husband's consent (i.e. business dealings).  The would perhaps explain why she could not testify against her estranged husband.  I've come across this separation arrangement before where it was particularly hard on the wife as (in the 1680s) she was entirely dependent on the hostile husband for support.  Thank you for helping me inch towards some clarity!

[jim1]

When the Matrimonial Causes Act became law in the mid 19th. C a wife couldn't divorce her husband on grounds of adultery alone although a husband could. I would say this was also the case previously to that.

[ercall]

Thanks Jim,
This was a case of the wife's adultery.  Though I believe the husband also followed her example, hence her fury at him later, but initially it was the wife who abandoned her husband to live openly with another man and gave her husband grounds.

[ercall]

To Jim1
To divert just a little.  I noticed in the names you're researching Lutwyche and thought I'd mention that in this case I'm looking at the defence counsel was Sir Edward Lutwych and it concerns a Warks family called Stepkin, one of whom, Peter, married Mary Lutwych of Seighford in Staffs, daughter of Rev. Stocket Lutwich/Lutwych of Swinnerton Staffs.  Just thought it worth mentioning.

[jim1]

Sound like a interesting couple but you probably wouldn't want them living next door.
I'm well up on the Lutwyches. I researched them many years ago for a nephew's wife later to find I was related as well (by marriage) to Sir Edward. I've come across the name Stockett.

[aelfric]

By a weird coincidence I came across a case in a distant branch of my family in 1863.  A lodger was accused of stealing a sovereign from his landlord (they were sharing a bed!).  Landlord's daughter - lodger's "sweetheart" - testified against her father and accused was bailed to appear at Quarter Sessions next month. By then the pair had married so case had to be dropped.
It appears that a wife couldn't even testify in defence of her husband, though she may have changed her testimony - she was dead within the year.

[ercall]

Thank you to everyone who responded, I'm much clearer on the issue now.  I'm waiting for more copy documents from Lambeth which I think will clarify the issue, but thanks to all your help I think I'm on the right track now.  One thing I do know is that I wouldn't have liked to be a woman in the 17th century.