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

THE AYLESFORD DIVORCE CASE.

The case of " Fearon v. the Earl of Aylesford"
came on at a late hour on Tuesday before the Master
of the Rolls and Lords Justices Cotton and Lindley'
in the Court, of Appeal. The action was originally
brought by Mr. Fearon, acting as trustee for the
Countess of Aylesford, to recover arrears of an
annuity granted to her by her husband the Earl
of Aylesford, who had, in 1882, obtained an Act
of Parliament for the settlement of his estates.
At this time he made the Countess an allowance,
which he discontinued when he discomed that
the intimacy which had subsisted between his
wife and the Marquis of Blandford (the
present Duke of Marlborough), whicii formed the
subject of a divorce suit, had been renewed, and that
the parties had lived together both in London and
Paris under the names of Mr. and Mrs. Spencer, the
result being that a child was born, and was duly
registered as "Guy Bertram, Lord Guernsey.'
When the action by the trustee was brought before
Mr. Justice Day and a special jury at Westminster,
the verdict passed for Lord Aylesford, but the Divi-
sional Court, composed of Justices Denman and
Manisty, varied that order, and from that decision
was the present appeal. Mr. Waddy, Q.C., and Mr.
Francis Turner appeared for the appellant, the Earl
of Aylesford, and Mr. Friday, Q.C., and Mr. Lane for
the plaintiff. Mr. Waddy, Q.C., contended that
although mere adultery would not amount to moles-
tation, yet the adultery, coupled with the birth of an
illegitimate child, would do so, and that such molesta-
tion would continue as long as the child lived. The
holding out of the child as Lord Guernsey, the cour-
tesy title of the eldest son of the Earls of Aylesford,
would be an additional act of molestation. He
further submitted that in all such deeds there was
implied a clause that the deed should only be
enforceable during chastity. The Master of the
Rolls: Do you say that the mere calling the child
Lord Guernsey, without making any claim, would
amount to molestation? Mr. Waddy said thlt his
contention was that the mere calling the child by that
srdpaAyy waslesfoorfd. o
name was making a claim on its behalf to be the
legitimate
Rolls:
m
issure.
Justice Lord
opinion tMhaasttethrereof
was no evidence that the lady had ever directed any
one to will the child Lord Guernsey. Mr. Waddy:
Our contention is that she was conscious that the
child was so called, and had not interfered to prevent
it. The learned counsel further submitted that the
acceptance by the lady of an allowance from the
Duke of Marlborough was in itself molestation, as it
injured the social position of Lord Aylesford. On
the conclusion of the arguments the court, without
calling upon the respondents, gave judgment in favour
of the plaintiff, holding that the covenants were inde-
pendent of each other; that the plaintiff had made
out his claim to the payment of the annuity, and that
there was no evidence to go to the jury on the
molestation clause in the counter olaim. Judgment
for the plaintiff with costs.
NEW NAME FOR nrsi GRAND OLD WO2EXIII.-.-The
Franchise Bill-der.—Futh