The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-05-01 00:00:00

A DIVORCE SUIT.

In the Court of Probate and Divorce, before Lord
Penzance, the cause of "Shewell v. Sheweil and Fox,
the Queen's Proctor intervening," has been heard. It
was originally a suit by the husband for a divorce on
the ground of his wife's adultery with the corespond-
ent. The case was tried before the court on the 17th
of June last, when the learned judge after hearing the
evidence, pronounced a decree nisi. Since then circum-
stances have come to the knowledge of the Queen's
Proctor which have induced him to interfere in order
to prevent the decree becoming absolute, and he now
alleges neglect and misconduct on the part of the peti-
tioner which led to the adultery, as also collusion and
connivance at the wife's adultery.
The Solicitor-General and Dr. Tristram were counsel
, for the petitioner • the Attorney-General, and Mr. J.
F. Collis on the part of the Queen's Proctor ; and Mr.
Inderwiek appeared for the co-respondent.
The petitioner, the Rev. Frank Shewell, is a clergy.
man of the Church of England, and was married to the
respondent in 1857. Ife was, it appeared, an officer
serving in a militia regiment, when he became ac-
quainted with Captain Fox, the co-respondent. Some
years after, and previous to 1864, he seemed to have
taken holy orders, and after serving as a curate in
various places, in the spring of 1857 he got a living at
a place called Waterbury, but there being no resi-
dence for the incumbent he went into lodgings, and
his wife took a furnished house in Victoria-road, South
Kensington, for herself and child. That was in May,
1867, and a day or two after she went there Captain
Fox came to tfie house and lived there with the re-
spondent for over two months. The petitioner ap-
peared
dttuog have calleda -
,n'irgneriawtilfiee sdaurwing ttiaaaitni':,l).!'t
these visits, it was c., ntendedthat the least inquiry must
have satisfied him that adultery was being committed
there, and that the previous circumstances which took
place between himself and Captain Fox respect ing the re-
spondent ought to have induced him to make such in.
mury. As regarded these circumstances, it was alleged
by the Queen's Proctor that so early as 1863 the
petitioner was jealous of Captain Fox, and also that in
1864 and 1865 the respondent became dissatisfied with
her husband in consequence of his conduct and at.
tention to Miss Fox, the sister of the co-respondent.
Some altercation seemed to have taken place be.
tween the petitioner and co-respondent respecting these
matters, and it was stated that even after that the
petitioner did not pay the attention to his wife he ought
to have done. - -

Several witnesses were called, some of whom were
servants in the employment of the petitioner in 1861.

At that time he was curate in Padbury, in Wiirwl•*.
shire, and they spoke vs to pert in faralb
hetwen the petitioner end Miss Fox, and of the
tress which these attentions iutli d n •ila rmpoid
One of them stated that on one occrsion she went tot 5
the dining-room and found Miss Fox sitting on tS
petitioner's knee.
Mr. Holland, a shoemaker at Padbury, w-,
called, and stated that in the early part of I l) i'm
petitioner dealt with him, and on every occasion i o
came to his shop Miss Fox was with him. At ftr,t
thought it was Mrs. Shewell, as she seemed to do with
him what she liked, but he afterwards found out his
mistake. He never saw Mrs. Shewell at his shop but
once.
Mr. Vickers stated that he knew the petitioner an
Miss Fox when at Padbury, and had played at whist
with them. On one occasion whilst they were dolng
so he saw the petitioner give Miss Fox a look which he
considered most improper for a married man to give to
a yolllag woman.
The Solicitor-General Were they partners in the
game?
Mr. Vickers: Yes, they were (laughter).
After hearing further evidence and the comments of
counsel, Lord Penzance considered there was no evi-
dence of collusion or connivance. He considered the
Queen's Proctor had failed in making out such a ea,o
as could bar a husband from obtaining a divorce. Tin.;
was all he could Fay just now, as there was no motion
to make the degree absolute.