The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1862-03-04 00:00:00

Court lidos.

The Press gime words to a rumour which has long
bees !eating shout in the air:'• The reports which have
ffmteense time been in circulation relative to. negotiation
,
• marriage being on foot between the Prince of Wales
" UPI the Princeu Alexandrian of Glocksburst, eldest
viweighter of Prince Christian, the heir presumptive of
Is mown of Denmark, have lately recei.ed a further
• Inessore of confirmation. We are enabled to state that
-OM Primes met the Princess when on his way to Vienna,
•-‘'. •d diet the Marriage in %audio° may now be regarded
•••ut"... *to event ',hash is au•ly la store for the future."
Mite father ot this young Prinoess, it will be remembered,
Is the person brought nearer to the succession of the
banish Crown by the protocol concocted by Lud
Palmerston and signed by Lord Malmesbury. By that
document, the virtual expression ota recret arrangement,
twenty-semen dfrsst 'Mrs to the succession were swept
'map.

lorgale _
IRMO:MAI CAIN Or LEGITINACT.—In the Vim.
Chancellor's Curt on Wednesday the question of the
legitimacy of Bre. Elisabeth Barker came on for hear-
. =Mrs. Hossey's husband, who was a linendraper,
'mg at fivrinefiest, some 25 miles from York,
beams insane in 1833, and was removed to • lunatic:
asylum in York. In 1837, while the husband was still
In the asylum, Mrs. Balmy gave birth to a daughter
(eabeequently Mrs. Barker), who was baptised as being
the ehtld of lir. and Mrs. Bosomy, and lived with her
mother until her marriage, She had children and has
eines died. She was entitled under a will to sertain
property as the child of Mr. and Mrs. Homey. but in
the *veal of there being no child of Mr. ad Mrs.
timely the property went to other persons. Those
persons disputed her legitimacy, and consequently the
elaim of her children to the property, on the ground
that whit. Mr. Balmy was in the lunatic asylum hi
Vas Hying 'operate from his wife, and that he could
not have had games to her. In favour of the legitimacy
evidsoc• of Mrs. Bossey had been taken, and that
ef She nurse who attended her in her confinement, emd
• Who proved that aim reinemlered her going to York to
Visit ber husband. Oa the other band Mr. Ellis, the
superintendent of the asylum, and several of the
keepers, had made 'Slava that, by the regulations of
the establlehmeet, Mrs. Bosley could nut have seen
her husband except in the presence of one of the
keepers, and that there were special orderi given in
this tome that Mrs. Bomey ahould not be left alone with
het hilliand. The Viee-Chancellor said a child born of
• married woman was presumed to be legitimate. The
taw respected and supported Um legitimacy of such •
Whild, though it did not prevent any person from dis-
puting the legitimacy; but the onus probandi was
thrown entirely on the person so disputing it. Lord
Manalield said the general law waa that • child born el
• married women was to be presumed to be the child of
the haebeed, melees there was such evidence m must
lame tie dada that the child was not the ohild of the
Imatiand. Sir John Leach said, "The evidences to
sepal the presumption must be clear and satisfactory;"
and lard Lyndhurst said, " The evidence for the pur-
pose of repelling the premunption moat be strong,
distinct, satisfactory, and eonclusive." His Honour
Chen proceeded to state the facts of the ca..as given
above, and sail the asylum was situate at the end- of a
long avenue, at the entrance to which there was a gate,
which, szsept at nights, was not always kept locked,
end it appeared that the inhabitants of York were
vosestomed to nee this avenue as a promenade, and
that Mr. Bosley, whose delusion was of a harmless
kind, was often in Shia avenue. Evident,* had been
ropes that there were rummers of Mrs. Bossey's Ina-
dislity to her husband, but he did not attach much
credit to them. Indeed, the rumours might hare
arisen from the inquiries set en foot by the parties who
were interested in hoe boring we ablidme. -He thought
,„Apaeidenee was not anseganeegh to leave no doubt
- Mist the husband was not the father of the child, and
therefore be came to the conclusion chat Elizabeth
gevinir was the legitimate child of Mr. and Mrs. '
Modem.
Tag DIVORCE CLAM IN alai Live.--& oerrespon-
.dant of the Sheffield Telegraph writes as follow,:
"The Marquis of Westmeath, who will shortly figure
In a divorce case in which a Sheffield gentleman is so-
respondent, is an old man of 77. He has been twice ,
married, his wife being a sister of the present Marquis
of Salisbury. She died in 1658, and his lordship
married in the same year • Mina Travis, of whom the
peeramrbooks and the herald's office make no mention,
The marquis was 73 at the time of his marriage. There
are no children by either marriage, and the marquiaete
him with the present holder of the title, who is
succeeded in the earldom by his cousin, Mr. Nugent,
*minty Ordway, so that the marquis will be the finst
and the Mat holder of the title. The peerage is, of
course, an Irish one, and his lordship occupies a seat in
the Upper Rouse only by virtue of his election as a
repsemetative peer of the sister country. Singularly
wealth, his mother was divorced in 1796 from his
father, who was afterwards re-married. More singular
mill, the marquis has himself figured in the old court
of divorce. In 1826-10ag before ifir Cromwell Cress-
well was an institution in the State—he brought a suit
for the restitution of conjugal rights against Ledy
Westmeath, who pleaded in answer that her husband
had treated her with cruelty, and made a counter
charge of adultery committed subsequently to their
emaralioe. Lord Westmeath denied both charge.; and
on seek number of witnesses—altogether exceeding 60—
were sticamined. The judge of the Consistorial Court
(Dr. Lustidutdri)menouneed that the wife had failed in
proof of bath her allegations, and decreed that she
'should return to matrimonial cehabition. From this
Judgment Lady Westmeath appealed to the Arches
• Court. She proved several acts of personal ill-treat-
meet, by blows and otherwise, when she was far
advanced in pregnancy. The marquis had also been
guilty of violent language and behaviour towards his
wife from 1813 down to 1817. A separation was then
agreed upon, but, on • reconciliation, . matrimonial
cohabitation and intercourse were renewed: Sir Jahn
Nichols, the judge of the Arches Court, after hearing
evidence, held that the adultery was not proved, that ,
malty apt. 1817 was proved, and that though after. ,
wards there was no personal violence, the conduct of
the marquis exalting reasonable apprehension of it,
revived the former cruelty. He therefore decreed a
separation, and eondemaed the husband in the coma in
both courts, except thole incurred by certain charges of
adultery. From this Senteelle the marquis appealed,
bet it was rewffirmed by the High Court of Delegates.
In 1820, the marquis was pronounced in contempt for
noepaysient of Lady tli's costs.