The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-05-18 00:00:00

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAUSE, MAY ii.

(Before Lord CAMPULL, Lord Chief Baron POLLOCK,
and th• JUDO ORDINARY.)
BODDINOTON v. BODDINOTON AND NORRITICR.

Mr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Maoqueen appeared for the
petitioner.
This was • petition for a dissolution of marriage pre-
"anted by • husband against a wife, on the ground of
adultery. The petitioner is • solicitor, who carries on
business at Dudley, and resides at Higley, • few miles
from that town. On the 13th of January, 1856, he was
married at St. George'', Hanover-square to the re-
spondent, then Miss Mary Ann Webster. It was
proved that on several 000sions in February last, Mrs.
Boddington was seen to enter the warehouse of the so.
respondent, Mr. Nossiter, at Birmingham, and remain
there for two or three hours at • time; that on the 2nd
of March she went with lim by railway to Gloceeter ;
that they went to the Wellington Hotel in that city,
and slept together there that night and the following
night, returning to Birmingham on the 4th of March.
Evidence was also given that Mr. and Mrs. Boddington
appeared to live on good terms, and that he was a kind,
indulgent husband. No evidence was Ewen with regard
to Mr. Nossiter further than that he MRS in the wool
trade and had • warehouse at Birmingham. The pe•
titioner was in court, but was not examined.
Lord Campbell said there was irresistible evidence of
illicit intercourse between a man and • woman at
Glooester, and the identity of those persons with the
respondent and co-respondent was also established. The
Court would thief ore order the marriage to be dissolved.
An application was made for sects against the adul-
terer, but
Their Lordshipe refused to make the order. There

was no evidence whether he was aoquainted with Mr.
and Mrs. Boddington. He might have met Mrs. Hod.
dington walking in the streets, and have been ignorant
that the was a married woman.

WILAIRERILL 0. WEATHERILL.
Mr. Davidson conducted the petitioner's ease.
The petitioner, Mrs. Emma Weatherill, is the
daughter of a surgeon, near Guisborough, in Yorkshire,
and was married to the respondent, George Jackson
Weatherill, the son of a solicitor, at Guisborough, in
1853. At that time he was articled to his father, and
had no means, and Mrs. Weatherill was possessed of
about £3,000. They had one child who was born in
February, 1835. It appeard that Mr. Weatherill after
his marriage gave way to habits of intemperance and
dissipation ; that he frequently absented himself from
his home, and conducted himself in an improper manner
towards his wife ; and at last on the 28th of March,
1856, that he left his home, and never returned. He
came first to London, bringing with him £7OO, the pro-
duce of part of his wife's property, and occupied a
publichouse at Pentonville. He was afterwards put
into Whitecrossetreet Prison for debt, where he re-
mained from May, 1857 to February last, and on his
release he took a passage for Australia. He is now on
his way there, but before his departure he was served
with a citation in this suit. The grounds of the petition
were adultery, coupled with desertion for two years and
upwards, and cruelty, but the latter charge was aban-
doned. It was proved that at the end of 1855 and the
beginning of 1856 Mr. Weatherill frequently had adul-
terous intercourse with a woman named Mary Ann
Sanderson, who lived in service at South Stockton, a
station on the line of railway near Guisborough. The
prayer of the petition was in the alternative for a disso-
lution of marriage, or for • judicial separation.
Lord Campbell said their Lordships were of opinion
that a case of adultery, coupled with desertion for two
years and upwards without reasonable excuse, had been
made out, and that there was evidence that when the
husband left his home in 1856 he intended to abandon
his wife altogether. Th.ire was also evidence that the
cause of hisleaving his wife was that he preferred another
woman. The Court would, therefore, decree the disjoin-
tion of the marriage.

lioßlllB V. NOBRIS AND GYLES.
In this case a dissolution of marriage was pronounced
on Tuesday, and their Lordships had taken time to con-
sider what should be done with regard to the property
secured by the settlements.
Lord Campbell said they were of opinion that they
had no power to interfere in the matter. There would
be a simple decree for a dissolution, the omits to be paid
by the adulterer.

BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
Lord Campbell, before tilt rising of the Court, said he
could not refrain from expressing his satisfaction with
the beneficial operation of the new act. The Court had
pronounced sentence of dissolution in eight cases, in all
of which the petitioners had proved that they were
clearly entitled to the remedy they sought. Although
in some of those cases the petitioners would have been
able to obtain • divorce under the old system by passing
a Bill through Parliament, yet in others they would
have been debated from that remedy by their poverty.
It was satisfactory to to think that rich and poor were
now upon an equal footing, and that the same remedy
was open to all who could establish their right to it.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, MAT 12.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBOHN.)