The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-01-24 00:00:00

(Before the JUDGE ORDINARY, Afr. Baron CHAIM=

and Mr. Justice-KEATING.)

liITAINTHORP 1. TAINTHOBP.

Mr. Gibbous appeared for the petitioner.
This was a petition by John Stainthorp, a butler in a
gentleman's family, for a dissolution of his marriage
with Mary Staintliorp, on the ground of adultery. The
parties were married in 1838, at Deptford, and cohabited
in that neighbourhood until 1642. StaiTabor!, then
went into the country, leaving his wife in lodgings with
an adequate provision for her support. During his ab•
acme she was very irregular in her habits, left the
lodgings, and was proved to have been living in adultery
with different persons at various periods eine. that tune.
Shin had • child, which is now 11 years of age, by a
man named Sennett. . .. . .

The petitioner was called by the Court, and stated, in
answer to their Lordships' questions, that lie had not
lived with the respondent for 16 yearn; that in 1842 he
went into the country with the family with which be
was in service ; lie was absent for a few months, and on
his return to Londoncohabited with her for a short time,
and then went away again, and remained for 15 months.
He remitted £lO aomarter to her. On his return lie
found she had disappeared. She afterwards su 11111 l oned
him before a metropolitan magistrate for a maintenance,
and an order was made upon him. under which be paid
her 3s. 6d. a•week until about six years ago, when he
discontinued it upon discovering that she was in the
family•way.
The Jadge Ordinary said the petitioner appeared to
have conducted himself properly in every respect. He
had made an ample provision for his wife while lie was
absent upon his business, he had not separated from
her without reasonable cause, and he was entitled to the
relief he prayed.
The Court dissolved the marriage.
LUPTON C. LIPTON.

Mr. Spinks conducted the petitioner's case.
A iin Lupton char,ted her husb.ind, William Lupton,
with adultery, cruelty, aml de,ertion. Lupton WWI
formerly a hairdresser. lie inarriell the petitioner in
1844. and coil:ll.4rd with lie at Bradford. Immediately
after his marriage he gave up his buisin,sa. obliged ,us
wife to open a confectioner's shop, and lived upon her
industry. He led a life if drunkenness and debauchery,
and at the SAIIItt time treated his wife with great cruelty,
(resiliently abusing, striking and threatening her. After
living with her for 14 months he kicked her out of doors,
and when she went back to the house and asked for ad-
mission be said he would murder her if she ever re-
turned to hiui again. He has since that time lived with
a woman named Stead, and with other prostituted, and
has contnbuteil nothing to his wife's support.
The Judge Ordinary said the respondent's conduct had
been moat disgusting and profligate, and the Court had
no difficulty in dissolving the marriage.

JONES V. JOSE.

Mr. Norman appeared for the petitioner.
This was a petition by a wife on the ground of adul-
tery, coupled with cruelty. The respondent was a sailor,
and he married the petitioner in September. WA, and
cohabit.' with her at Barking until lrts7. In the
May of that year he returned from a fishing voyage to
Grimsby, aud infected his wife with a venereal disease.
She then separated from him.
The Court, held that, even assuming that it had been
proved that the husband communicated the disease to
Iris wife, it had not been este:dished that lie did so wil•
fully. No other evidence of cruelty having been given,
the petitioner was not entitled to • dissolution of her
marriage, but the Court would pronounce a decree of
judicial separation on the ground of adultery.