The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1870-08-23 00:00:00

A CURIOUS OAST.

At Gail, !ford Assizes. Dielse v. Parks, was au adios
by a young woman who had lived with a person awed
Parks, to recover from his executors the sum of £l,lOO
on notes whiih he had given to her. The executors
oisniced their habiiity, on the grownl that the notes
were given for an immoral consideration,— that is. in
consideration of the continue.' cohabitation with him,
which was ilevie.l.

Mr. Denman, Q.c., and Mr. F. Turner were for the
0,444; Mr. lia *Ain% Q.t., and Mr. Philbrick were
for the defendant*.
it appeared that the young woman h id got her living
in • re.peot.ible capacity, and that Parks got her to live
with him. Several children resulted, and as they were
born be gave her note, or checks as a provision for them.
This she stated, and her evidence was confirmed by
another witness and by • document in his handwriting.
No evidence was called to rebut this evidence, and at
the clout of the case the counsel for the defence declined
to address the jury, and submitted that there was no
evidence to enport a trnrdict for the plaintiff.
In' the course of plaintiff's auss-esamination the fol-
lowing passage occurred:—
Mr. You have told tie that you went Once
to the deceased's house at Lewisham. When was
tat?

_
%%* itheas (very much affected): It was when he was
on hic deathbed. Ile had not been to see me since the
Wednesday bef,ro, and he was then ill, and I went to
Mimi's, after Lim.
You were dressed in male apparel at this time? I was
(weeping). Ile sae jest dead at the time I went.
The Lord Chief Justice, however, declared that there
was evidence for the jury, and accordingly directed a
verdict for the plaintiff, with leave to the defendants
to move spinet it.
TIM rsorsan Or
.11,11111111 D WOIMN.
-

_
Ward r. Barrett, at Guildford assit-s, was • some.
what sin,mlar case, extremely illustrative of the law as
to the property of insrried women. lt was an action by
• husband to recover property belonging to the wife,
which, after he bad left her, she had hOld•

Mr.. Prentice, (1.e.. anif Mr. Joy°o were for the
plaintiff; Sir George Moroni and Mr. Ihy were for
the ii. fendent.

it appeared that in ISIS the plaintiff deserted his
wife (as she swore. though he denied it), and during his
desertion- in 1856—the wife sioquired earninr, with
which she pursha•ed the proprrty in question, which
was leasehold, and worth about L 750. Afterwards, in
1859, she obtained. under the Divorce Act, an order of
protection, on the ground of desertion, which in terms
protected "ell her earnings and property acquired
since the commencement of the desertion." After this
the wife soul the property to the defendant The
linabaini came hack in I e•iio, and, hearing of the property,
claimed it. Upon this evidence,
The Lord Chief Justice held that the order, not
having been set aside, must he taken as valid, mail, if
••lid, was au answer to the action, lie must, thrrefore,
direct • verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff
must be left to move the Court, if he pleased, against
the verdict. To such a motion, however, he gave no
eneouragernent, his opinion being in favour of the
defendant, as it must he takes (for the purpose of this
case) that the plaintlf had deserted his wife.—Verdict,
therefore, for the defendant.
Shortly afterwards,
The Lord Chief Justice observed that there wee a
subsequent Act—after the first Divorce Act—which
made the law still clearer its such a case in favour of
the married woman.