The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1862-11-18 00:00:00

DIVORCE COURT.

WALLACE V. WALL.ior.—This Vras a Petition lit the
wife, praying for a judicial separation on the gi-ound
of adultery, and the petitioner originally alleged
cruelty, but that charge was abandoned. The case
came on for hearing before Judge Creswell on Wednes-
day. The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Tristrain were for
the petitioner, and Serjeant Ballantvue and Fierjeant
O'Brien for the respondent. Both parties were respect.
able in station, the respondent being the son of an emi.
nent conveyancer, and the petitioner the daughter of a
surgeon, who had been for some time deceased, he
was about twenty years old at the time of marriage,
and was then residing with her mother at If mosey, who
was not aware of the marriage until shortly after its
solemnisation in October 1849. There we no ditiparity
of yeark between the partial!, the reapondent being
twenty-one or twenty-two years of age when he Married
the petitioner. The parties cohabited until May, 1861,
when the petitioner left her husband, in consequence,
as she 'alleged, of his misconduct, and they had not
since lived together. There was one child issue of the
marriage living, a daughter, and the petitioner also
prayed for her custpdy .—Mrs. Mary Coleman, examined
by Dr. Tristram : I are the mother of the petitioner.
My husband reilided at Rowley, and though he was a
setjeant he did not practice his profession. The mar-
riage was clandestine but I consented to see my
daughter and her husband at my place a few days after
the ceremony. The day before he took may daughter
away from my place, after her marriage, we had souse
conversation. They both went to reside at Wimborne,
in Dorsetshire, and I visited them for the first time in
1850. They left Wimborne, and for souse time they
had no fixed residence, They lived at Byrne Regis for
about three uicinths Aftervtaititi, but I did not tee theist
there. I saw them subsequently at Salisbury, but my
visit lasted only for a few minutes, or at most about
half an hour. They visited at my house, and the last
time was in 18.57. The letters produced are in the
handwriting of the respondent. (The letters were read,
and were dated in 1861, after the separation with his
wife, and he admitted that he had committed adultery
on certain occasions, but denied that several of the
charges against him were true. He said that his wife
kissed him on the day when she left him, and he
promised that If she returned to him he would "se
up fast company and beer,b' to iehifiii lie Admitted he
had &en addicted. He expressed great affection for
his child, and said that he wonllpfly to the court
to have free access to her. He ....,-that if his wife
applied for a dissolution of niarrie would offer no
opposition to the snit, and provide her with evidence to
establish the adultery, but that be would resist any
petition for judicial separation. These letters were
addressed from Eton-street, Fisherton, Salisbury.) The
respondent was a solicitor. ht he did not practise or do
anything for his living. Ills /ether alloWed him MO
a year, arid gate theiti PAO a y6;llE—Jane Millet
Hodder, examined by Dr. Phillimore : I live at More.
cainbe Lake, four miles from Lyme Regis. In the year
1854 or 1855 I saw the respondent at Charmouth, in
Dorsetahire, where he was staying with hisliwifejand I
formed his acquaintance. (here the witness deposed to
a series of acts of adultery between her and the respon-
dent. She stated also that she had intercourse with
him as late as Thursday last at Salisbury.)—Edmand
Goldon, superintendent of police at Salisbury, said that
he had known the respondent for alma two years ahel
a half, and that both had lately been living at Gilioit's
public-hoops in Salisbury.
.Thti respondent we; Con-
tinually dtunk, add on the 22nd of October, 1861, lie
sari hint at Salisbu}y Fair in Bthripaily With two prosti-
tutes, and when lie taught sight of the witneas he ran
away. Ile Paw him afterwards in company with a prosti.
tute,named Roth Worth.—James M'Gough,a sergeant in
the Salisbury police, corroborated the evidence of the
last witness as to the respondent's associating with the
female Worth, having seen him with her at refresh-
ment rooms kept by a Min Matthews, at Fisherton.
He said to witness on that occasion, " This is Ruth
Worth, the person about whom there has been so inneh
said, I understand that Mr. Bread and g superinten-
dent of police have called on her, and that I said to het,
' Don't tell anything to those about it.' "—Mary
Hale stated that she was a servant at the Somerset
Hotel, Weymouth; and in November, 1861, she re-
membered a gentleman coining there in company with
• lady. They slept there two nights, and occupied the
same bedroom. She subsequently identified the
gentleman as Mr. Wallace; but the lady who slept with
him at the Somerset Hotel was not Mrs. Wallace.--kin
George Board, landlord of the Somerset Hotel, also
deposed to the respondent hating slept at the estab4sh-
ment With a female, Who *as tt the petitioner. his
clonedthe petitidrieil rjearit Ballantind said
that he Was hot prepared to offer :My oppotiition to the
case that bad been made out of adultery, for his atten-
tion had been chiefly directed to the charges of cruelty
whiah had been abandoned.—The learned judge then
decreed the judicial separation, and directed that the
child shonld remain in custody of the mother until
further orders.