The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-07-27 00:00:00

Legal.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
cAUSES, Ject 20.
(Before the JUDOL-ONDINANT.)
THOUFVON V. TROMPION.—JUDOIIIINT.

Thum was i petition for a judicial separation, pre-
*onkel by Mrs. Thompson, on the ground of her hus-
band's desertion..
• • . . . . .

Sir C. Lreuwell, having taken time to consider the
evidence, this morning gave judgment. Desertion, he
said, was a new ground of separation. A new authority
wee conferred upon the Court with reenact to it, not
pre-waiting in any eoelesiastical court, end no doubt
there might be great difiloulty in deciding what the Le-
gislature meant by the word "desertion." Without
affecting to decide precisely the meaning of that word,
he thought it 'oust at least man a wilful absenting
himself by the ituebatid in spite of the wish of the wife,
she not being a consenting or oonaurring party. In this
cue he thought there vu no desertion within that dee-
nition. From the evidence of MM. Thompson it ap-
peared that she and her husband were living at Leeds,
that they went to York and were married without the
knowledge of their parents, that their marriage was disco-
vered in the course of a few months, and that Mrs.
Thompson's fatherthen sent her to live with her husband.
After she had cohabited with him for three or four
years he lost a situation he had obtained, he failed in
establishing a business, the property was sold off, and
she went back to her father's while he name to London
to seek employment. The desertion was supposed to
have begun at that time. It vu mentioned almost
aooi-
'lentelly that emus letters had been written by him, and
it then appeared that soon after his arrival in London
he wrote a letter @sprouting groat affection for her and
regret that oireumitenoes had eompetled Itlin to go to
London, and staling that he looked forward with impa-
tient» to the time when they wonld live together.
Again, after that she had an interview with him, when
he said that he bad not yet succeeded in his undertaking,
but be hoped soon to be more imoressful. It appeared
that at this interview she was rather cold, and he tried
to pique her and make her Jealous by mentioning that a
lady in London had made hint a present. He inibee-
quently wrote to her other letters in affectionate terms,
to wh'oh ahe returned no answer. He afterwards wrote
an angry letter complaining of her not entering into oor-
reepondenoil, and saying that if 010 continued silent he
should conclude that she wished to have done with him,
Hrs. Thompson said she did not answer that letter be.
cause it was insulting, and that she did not answer the
former letters because she vu busy nursing her chit-
dren ; but when she was pressed for a more satisfactory
answer she said her father objected to her writing. Thug
the Court was able to arrive at something like the truth.
The marriage was never approved by the father, and
when his daughter wont to live with hint he did not wish
that she should have any further oommunioatiot with her
husband. He could not treat this IA aMN of desertion
within the meaning of the statute, and he should there-
fore dismiss the husband from the snit. Judgment for
the respondent.
Several motions as to the mode in which petitions
were to be tried, and as to the amount of alimony to be
granted to petitioners while their suits were pending,
were heard in the course of the day.

WEDNESDAY, Jury 21.
(B•fors the JUDGE 011DINAIT.)
STOATS V. STOATS.

Dr. Swabey, on the part of the wife, who prayed fora
judicial separation, moved fur alimony perulexie
The respondent, who was described as of Minoltas& in
the county of Somerset, was called to the bar by the
Society of Oray'e Inn in 1847, but did not practice, and,
under the will of his father, proved in 1897, chine into
posseuinn of some property. Mrs. Stoats suggested
that his yearly income exceeded ELKO. The respond.
ant, in his answer, statod that his income from all sources
did not exoeed 420. . . . .

The respondent appeared in person In opposition to
the application, and commenced making various charges
against his wife ; hot
Sir C. Cromwell would not allow him to prooeed,
telling him that the only question now was the amount
of his inoome. Taking his 'noon's at £320, he should
award kw a year temporary &Homy to the petitioner.

AN ACTION AOAINST THI LORD CHASOILLOR.—A
ease of considerable importance has arisen out of the We-
brated eause Swinton r. Swinton, as it will raise a ques-
tion materially affecting the privileges of counsel, Mrs.
Swinton hu brought an aotion against the Lord Chin-
oellor under the following circumstances :—An issue had
been directed by the Court of Chancery to try the vali-
dity of the will of Samuel Swinton, by which he be.
queathed an estate of £60,030 to hie widow. The will
was impeached by the defendant re the heir-at-law. The
ease came on for trial in the spring of 1866, at Stafford,
when a comproiniae was entered into between counsel on
both sides, Lord Chelmsford, then Sir Frederick Thesi.
ger, being 000nsel for fdre. Swinton, and Sir Alexander
Cockburn, the Chief Jostle. of the Common Pleas, who
WIN then Attorney General, the repreeentative of the
heir-at.law. Under this arrangement the defendant
wee to secure to Mrs. Swinfen an annuity of L 9,000 &
year. Mrs. Swinton, however, on !miring that this
coinpromise had been inade was exceedingly dissatisfied,
and ref teed to give her cement to carry It out, but she
did not for some time openly repu Hate it. The wetter
give rise to fresh legal proceedings, both in the Common
Pleas and the Equity Courte, and in November the
Master of the Rolls gave Judgment directing that there
should be a new trial to teat the validity of the will.
This cause is to coine on for trial at the forthcoming
Stafford Aseise,. In the meantime all the neoessary
steps have been taken in this action which Mrs. Swinton
has been advised to bring against Lord Chelniatord, with
the view of recovering clainagea against him for having,
u her counsel, entered into a oompromise, rash/ alleges,
in distinct defiance of hoe authority. This action will
probably be eat down for trial at the sittings after next
ierin for Ildiddleux ; and will doubtleu create no small
amount of interest.