The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-11-22 00:00:00

CLERICAL DIVORCE SUIT.

One of the most painful cases which has been before
the Probate and Divorce Division of the High Court
of Justice for some time was determined on Monday
before Mr. Justice Butt. It was a suit by the Ref.
Joseph Cater, a clergyman of the Church of England.
for the dissolution of his marriage with Martha Ann
Cater, whose maiden name was Williams, on the
ground of her adultery with William Stanier. The
respondent denied the charge against her, and made
counter-charges of adultery, cruelty, conduct con-
ducing to the adultery alleged against her, and pro-
curing the co-respondent and other persons to induce
her to comraitt adultery. The petitioner denied all
t hose counter-charges. The co-respondent filed no
answer.

Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., and Mr. H. Bargrave Deane
appeared for the petitioner; Dr. Pritchard and Dr.
Pankhurst for the respondent.
The petitioner was examined by Mr. Bargrave
Deane, and stated that he was rector of St. Luke's,
Chorlton-on-Medlock, Manchester. He married the
petitioner in 1862, and there were 12 children of the
marriage, nine of whom were now living. In
November, 1882, this Court pronounced a judicial
separation of himself and his wife on a petition of
hers charging him with adultery and cruelty. The
former charge was withdrawn, and the decree of
judicial separation was pronounced on one act of
violence committed by him. His wife was a woman
of intemperate habits.

Cross-examined by Dr. Pritchard, the witness stated
that in 1863 he lived with his wife at Highbury. It
was untrue that he ever committed forgery, or that
he about that date obtained a cheque for £6O belong-
ing to somebody else. In 1867 he was in the employ-
ment of Mr. White, the army provider at Aldershot.
He was imprisoned for four months on a conviction
for embezzlement while at Mr. White's. He had not
committed the crime of which he was then convicted,
and that conviction was most unjust. He afterwards
joined in a mission with Mr. Booth, who was now at
the head of the Salvation Army. Subsequently he
became a Congregationalist minister, and afterwards
he was ordained in the Church of England. While
the suit against him was pending in 1882 he came
from Manchester to do some clerical duty in the
diocese of St.44lbans. The Bishop of St. Albans
inhibited him "till everything was cleared up."
That inhibition had not been withdrawn: but he
was in the full exercise of his ministry under his
own diocesan—the Bishop of Manchester. In 1879
he made the acquaintance of Miss Nary Elizabeth
Beale Cooper. That was the lady against whom, in
her petition of 1882, and in the counter-charges now
before the Court, his wife charged adultery with him.
It was untrue that he had committed adultery with
Miss Cooper. It was also untrue that he told his
wife he had dined with Miss Cooper and they had
sealed their friendship with kisses. In May, 1882,
Miss Cooper came to stay at the rectory. Miss Cooper
was rich, and he might have stated that to his wife ;
but he did not tell her that Miss Cooper had taken
fancy to him. His wife was jealous of Miss Cooper
while the latter was staying at the rectory, but after
she left Mrs. Cater wrote to her asking her to repeat
her visit. Miss Cooper had given him her photograph,
and at another time he gave Miss Cooper his. Miss
Cooper assisted him to put his children to a higher
school than his own means would have allowed him to
send them to. He never had said to his wife, "I mean to
have a divorce, and if I marry Miss Cooper it is nothing
to you." He had kissed Miss Cooper many times—
on some occasions in the presence of his wife. He
was in London and stayed at an hotel there in June,
1882. On his return home his wife charged him with
having spent his time very pleasantly in London, and
with having committed adultery two or three times,
and said he would do so again, during his stay there.
It was not true that he then admitted the truth of the
charges. He believed that what he said when his wife
annoyed him on the subject was—" I did spend my-
time pleasantly in London, and if you say I committed
adultery it must be true.'"

Re-examine by Mr. Inderwick, the petitioner stated
that Miss Cooper took an interest in mission work
among the poor of his parish.
Miss Smith was examined, and stated that Mrs.
Cater had told her that she had spent a night with
Stanier in an hotel at Liverpool, and the barmaid, a
chambermaid, and the cook of the hotel stated that
Staniar and Mrs. Cater occupied a bedroom there on
the night of the 17th of April in the present year.
On the conclusion of the petitioners case, Dr. Yank-
burst, opened the case on Mrs. Cater's behalf. In
doing so he did not deny that the respondent and the
co-respondent had passed the night of the 16th of
April last at the Saddle Hotel; but he alleged that
the circumstances under which they passed the night
were such as to preclude the idea of any adultery
having been committed.
Mrs. Martha Ann Cater was then called. She
stated that in March, 1882, the co-respondent Stanier
came to lodge with her. A few days after she was
seized with typhoid fever. On her recovery Stanier
said a blow on the water would do her good, and he
took her to Liverpool to see the City of Rome steamer.
It was not convenient for them to go over the City of
Rome, and they went to New Brighton. It was
late when they got back, and they found all
the Manchester trains gone. Staniar then took
her to the Saddle Hotel. He had been drinking
during the day, and he was the worse for drink at
the time they got there. Before they went to the
hotel they attended a concert. Witness had no
money at the time, and she depended on her return
ticket. Stanier took the room at the Saddle Hotel.
Witness thought he hoid taken two root* but be
showed her into one and followed her. He shut the
door and said, "Don't be silly." She never put her
boots out of the bedroom door. She sat in the room
on a chair all the night. In the morning she awoke
Stanier, who had her ticket. She got her ticket
from him, and took the train home. Stanier came
home in the evening of the same day. He stayed in
her house for a month after. He then said that he
had got into debt, and must leave and go to America.
She never on any occasion committed adultery with
Stanier.

Mr. Justice Butt, in giving his decision, went over
the evidence respecting the alleged adultery at Liver-
pool, and he stated that he had no doubt the adultery
charged had been committed. It was possible that
the respondent might have, as she stated, remained in
the bed-room with the co-respondent without there
being anything wrong, but if people would put them-
selves into such a position as to lay the ground-
work of such charges they must abide the con-
sequences. As to the allegations against the
respondent, there was not a tittle of evi-
dence in support of them. There was no
doubt evidence which might have shown conduct
not altogether pure, but it by no means estab-
lished any criminal misconduct as between the
petitioner and Miss Cooper. In regard to the decree
of judicial separation in the former case, he did not i
think t acted as a barto the petitioner obtaining the
decree he sought for. He pronounced a decree nisi
with costa. While he did that he should refuse to
make the decree absolute until the petitioner made
provision for continuing to his wife the allowance she
had been receiving since the judicial separation—
namely, .£5O per annum.
Mr. Inderwick said the petitioner had arranged to
make such an allowance to his wife.
The father was also ordered to have the custody of
the youngest child of the marriage.