The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-07-24 00:00:00

THOMAS V. THOWAA._

Ann Thomas prayed for e udicial separation from
the Rev. J mph Neville Houghton Thomas, on the
ground of adultery. The respondent denied the adul-
tery, and further pleaded that, if he had coinusitted it,
the petitioner was fully cognizant thereof, conniving
thereat and consenting thereto.

'
Dr. Immo., 9.1%, am! Mr. (1. li. Coorer appeared. •Or
the petti c,and Dr. Spinks for the respondent.
The marriage took place first at Gretna-peen, and
afterwards. on the 111th of April. 1839. at St. Andrews,
Holborn, awl the ratites cohabited at different places in
Devon and Cornwall, but chiefly at Millbrook, in the
latter county, of which the respondent was the incum-
bent. The petitioner's maiden name was Everard, and
by a postnuptial settlement a certain sum of money
was rotted in trustees for her separate We. There had
been eight children of the marriage, of whom five are
still living. The eldest is 19, and the three youngest are
melee 14 yeare of age, and the petitioner prayed for
their custody. The woman with whom the adultery
was committed Was Margaret Elizabeth Hargrave. She
hail stayed for some time with Mr. &nil Mrs. Thomas in
Cornw previous to 1834. It Was proved that in May,
ISA Mr. Thomas and Miss Hargrave were living
together in lodgings at Greenwich as man and wife,
that Miss Hargrave there hail a child, and that in March
hot they were living together, still al man and wife, in
lodzings at Gravetiend.
Evidence of these facts was given by Mrs. Thumpeou
and Mrs. Mackey, the lanilladica of the houses at Green-
wich and Gravesend, and by Mr. Ashley Maples, a soli-
citor, who hail acten for Mrs. Tli ((((( at's trustees.
Mr. Maples, upon being cross-esamined by Dr.
:Oinks, stated that he went to Ireland in 1854, and Mr.
Thomas and Miss Hargrave were then living there to-
gether. He had been instructed by Mee. Thoutaa's
trustees to take proceedings in the Irish courts against
Mr. TI ~,,, las for the recovery of the trust fund (ELMO)
which hail been paid over to Mr. Thomas. He took
out a writ of at reat against Mr. Thomas, and even-
tually Mr. T 1 as and Minim Hargrave joined in giving
sei•urity for the sum upon an imitate which they had
purchased in Ireland. A deed of separation was after-
wards drown up and executed by Mr.and Mrs. Thu
Last year Mi. Hirgrave's solicitor paid over to him
the amount of the trust fund, 21,0190, and the costa of
the proceetlinp in Ireland.
No witnesses were called for the respondent, but the
deed of separation, dated the 19th of December, 1854,
WAS given in evidenee. The de•l recited that Mr.
i Thomas was wrongfully possessed of the trust fund ;
that lie had several ths before that date left his wife
and children. and had since been living in Ireland with 1
Mi. ILirgrave • that proceedings had been taken in the
Irish Conn of 'Chancery to compel restitution of the
trust fund, and proceedings were conteinplated in the
Ecclesiastical Court for obtaining a divorce and alimony,
that in order to put an end to further litigation
and expense certain terms had been agreed upon for ie.
funding the trust moneys and executieg a deed of sepa-
ration. Ix contained the usual covenants that each
should live sport from the other without being molested
by suits for the restitution of conjugal rights, and that
Mr. Thomas should be inde 'tied against her debts.'
and an assignment by Mr. Thomu to her trustees of the
household furniture and effects in Cornwall. It was
signed he Mr. and Mrs. Thomas.
Dr. Spinks submitted that this instrument proved
that Mrs. Thomas was cognizant of the connexion
between her huxband and Moe Hargrave, and that it
executed in contemplation of the continuance of
that connexion. He therefore contended, on the
authority of " Mathews v Mathews" (29 L. J., p. 113),
that Mrs. Thomas was not entitled to a decree.
Dr. Deane contended that the deed referred only to
what liad been done up to the date of its execution, and
not to any future time. The object of exeeutiag it was
merely to regain possession of the trust fund.
Sir C. Creaswelh —lf a woman with a clear case of
adultery alainst her husband said to him. "I am about
to sue for a divorce and to get alimony, but if you will
give 11,09(1 I will not tske proceedings," her husband
at that time living in adultery to her knowledge, do
you mean to say that this would not be eeidence of her
connivance at his continuing to live in adultery?
I Dr. Deane thil not think that it would.

Sir C. t'resswell mot a strange state of morals would
be intioduced into the country if the Court were to
hold that it would not. His present impression was
that the deed was an answer to the petition, but be
would take time for consideration.