The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-01-19 00:00:00

SOUTHWARL-FRIDAY.

Mr. Edwin, solicitor, of the Dover-road, attended be-
fore Mr. Combe to obtain an order under the "New
Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act" for the proteo-
tion of some property belonging to a married female,
carrying on busineas in the Old Kent-road. She had
been deserted by her husband several times, and on each
occasion he had plundered her of all her money, and left
her largely in debt. She was extremely industrious,
and without any assistance from her husband was able
to maintain herself and five children. He presumed
that his worship could make the required order for pro.
tection under the 21st clause of the ad. .

-ii7rom-i,";=-*IL; did the—h
11; an'ci desert her last?

Mr. Edwin—About five weeks ago. He then took
away £4O, leaving her to pay three quarters' rent, and a
number of bills, and he told her she might go to the
workhouse if she could not pay.
Mr. Combs—l don't think your application tames
within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. He has
only left her five weeks and may return, and there is
nothing to prevent the landlord coming in and seising
the goods for the rent due by the husband.
Mr. Edwin—But my client has been assisted in main-
taining her business by her relatives. The husband
never assisted her.
Mr. Combs—You say the husband has returned
several times, and only five weeks ago he deserted her.
He may return again to morrow. I cannot consider
that a desertion within the meaning of the act.
Mr. Edwin—Cannot you make an order for the pro-
tection of the goods by which she now gains her liveli-
hood

Mr. Combe—Has she acquired any property by her
own earning since her husband left her?
Mr. Edwin—l cannot say that exactly; but her
husband never rendered her any assistance, and it would
be a hard case for her to be plunded by him again. Her
landlord is willing to wait for the rent, and her friends
will assist her if she can get protection.
Kr. Combe—Under the circumstances which you
represent I cannot interfere. It does not come within
the meaning of the Act of Parliament.
Mr. Edwin—We shall have to come before you again
shortly, as it does not appear likely that the husband
will return again in a hurry.
Mr. Combs—l should be most happy to grant you the
order, and as soon as you can bring your application
within the meaning of the act you can have it.
The parties then left the court.

THE NEW LAW ON CRIMINAL CONVERSATION.—By
the 33rd section of the New Divorce Act (20 and 21
Victoria, cap. 85) s husband may claim damages from
any person on the ground of his having committed
adultry with the wife of the petitioner, and the petition
is to be served on the alleged adulterer and the wife,
unless the Court shall dispense with such service or
direct some other service to be substituted, and
claim made by every such petition shall be heard and
tried on the seine principles, in the same manner, and
subject to the same, or the like, rides and regulations as
actions for criminal conversation are now tried and
decided in courts of common law. The damages to
be recovered in any such petition are in all cases to be
ascertained by the verdict of a jury, although the re-
spondents, or either of them, may not appear ; and
after the verdict has been given the Court has power
to direct in what manner such damages are to be paid
or applied, and to direct that the whole or any part
thereof be settled for the benefit of the children, if any,
of the marriage, or as a provision for the maintenance
of the wife. Firther, by the next clause it is provided
than whenever in any petition presented by • husband
the alleged adulterer has been made a co-respondent and
the adultery has been established, it is to be lawful for
the Court to order the adulterer to pay the whole or
any part of the mots of the proceedings.
THE Naw Drvoito• Acrr.—The Mancheeter Guardian
says :—Monday, the 11th of January, 1858, witnessed
the initiation of • change in the law whose beneficial
effects will be felt and acknowledged every year more
fully and more widely. On that day, &wording to the
order of Council required by Its provisions, the Divorce
and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 came into opera.
t clerical a
or law
legislativethe mo
tyriam oppres;
tion. The country has cause to rejoice, not only in the
substantial benefit conferred upon thousands whose lives
avvee n
and re
iniquitousn rendered miserablet
ever devised, but also in the removal of • scandal and •
disgrace from the statutes of England. Till that day
there was in matters of matrimonial law one code tot

the rich and another for the poor. Till that day, free'
dom from ties which had become a bondage of intoler-
able and unutterable abomination was a luxury only to
be purchased by the wealthy. Till that day Shope who
could not pay some El,OOO or more for release were
doomed to pass their lives under • yoke like that of the
Italian tyrant who chained the living captive to the fes-
tering corpse. If ever change in the law was a great
national and social need; if ever a nation had cause to
bless the day when its Legislature relieved it from an
insufferable legal burden, then have the English people
cause to remember the day which blotted out from their
code the worst, most cruel, the most iniquitous feature
of the matrimonial law, and which established a tri-
bunal before which all classes may hope—at least ere
many years have elapsed—to obtain a hearing; which
will 'bring justice within the reach of all, and redress a
social oppression as grievous and as iniquitous as was
ever endured in a free and a Christian country. That
there are men who have fought against this change to
the last, and who still obstinately endeavour to thwart
its operation, and, as far as in them lies, to neutralize its
benefit, we are all aware. That it should be so is by no
means strange. It is sad, but not altogether surprising,
to find that the strongest opposition to a law intended to
extend to the poor the privileges hitherto confined to
the rich proceeds from the ministers of that Gospel
which was " preached to the poor." It is sadder still
to notice the unscrupulous nature of that opposition, and
the recklessness alike of consistency, decency, and recti-
tude which characterizes some of the proceedings
adopted by defenders of the ancient iniquities. It mad
cause deep regret to all sober-minded and well-judging
friends of the Established Church to mark the course
pursued by the Right Rev. the Bishop of Oxford. That
prelate low issued orders to his surrogates to grant no
licenses to persons divorced, so long as their previous
partners shall be living. In this manner the paid func-
tionary of the church by law established sets that law at
defiance, and disobeys the supreme head of his church.
We had thought that obedience to the State was one of
the clearest injunctions of Christianity, and that no good
citizen would endeavour to thwart the purposes of the
national Legislature. The Bishop of Oxford, it would
appear, thinks otherwise; and no doubt, as a Christian
prelate, he ought to be a better judge of Christian duties
than laymen, can be. But, as a matter even of mere
ecclesiastical policy and propriety, Dr. Wilberforce ap.
pears to have committed s serious error. The surrogate
may refuse the license—the parish clergyman cannot re-
fuse to publish the banns. The effect of this step will
therefore be that, throughout the diocese of Oxford,
when divorced persons demand to be remarried, the
juttazhh:eid:
marriage;
cmdeahusrp
ritr
gamerhtec;
then.
behtsEe ot
on
hu.tehtt
Oe believe,b.nemarriage,
parochial clergyman must ask the congregation, on three
succeesive Sundays, "whether they know any cause or
prelate
rlo thatpublicationr ot
reli-
gious impediinents exists. He may refuse to celebrate
iitadhilieisteaorbPaajteir:ton:
eeta.hgrhediamle.bvriseeslit
obfe
he may follow the example of Dr. Wilberforce,

COURT OP DIVORCR AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSER.—
The judges of this tribunal are the Lord Chsneellor, the
Lord Chief Justice of England, the Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, the Chief Baron, the Senior Puisne
Judge of the Common Law Courts, and the Judge of
the New Probate Court. What is styled by the Act
the "Full Court" will, in fact consist of the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Campbell, and the Judge Ordinary
(Sir C. Cresswell.) The "Pull Court" will decide
petitions for divorce—that is, dissolution of marriage,
subject to the review of the House of Lords, and suits
of nullity subject to no review. It will also determine
all applications for new trials, bills of exception, special
verdicts, and special cases, subject to no appeal. The
"Full Court" will further receive and determine all
appeals from the Judge Ordinary, and their decision on
such appeals will be fine'. "The Judge Ordinary's
Court.' judge will have full authority, either
alone, or with one or more of the other judges, to
decide petitions for judicial separations, restitution of
conjugal rights, and jaotitations. Petitions for restitu-
tion o conjugal rights will probably be rare. Jactita-
tion suits have been long in desuetude, and ought to
have been abolished. The Judge Ordinary's chief busi-
ness, either alone, or with one of the other judges, will
arise from petitions for judicial separation, which will
give the wife an independent status, and in general
secure for her the custody of he children—advantages
unknown in the ecclesiastical courts. Every decision of
the Judge Ordinary is subject to the review of the
"Full Court" by the shortest and simplest process, and
the decision of the "Full Court" will put an end to liti-
gation. The mutability of the judges, and the novelty
of the duties to all of them except the Lord Chancellor
and Lord Campbell, are thlngs to be regretted. It is
expected, however, that these two noble and learned
lords will assist as much as possible in settling principles
and forming • practice.