The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-04-05 00:00:00

Mr. EARLE—Write a letter to the papers instead.
Roars of laughter).

Mr. JEFFERY then moved that the Council, adhering
to the opinion so repeatedly expressed of the desira-
bility of concentrating all the public offices, but not
feeling themselves competent with the information
then before them to decide whether the plans then sub-
mitted were the best that could be desired, resolved that
the plans should be referred to a special committee, who
should have power to call for other plans, if necessary,
by public competition, and report to the Council.
Mr. SHELL seconded this amendment, which was
agreed to; and the Council then, shortly after 5 o'clock,
adjourned till Wednesday next.

DIVORCE COURT.

A ROMAN CATHOLIC LADY'S TREATMENT
BY HER GALLANT HUSBAND.

PLACE V. PLACE.

This was a petition by Mrs. Place for a judicial
separation, on the grounds of adultery, cruelty, and
desertion. These charges were denied by the respondent,
who also pleaded condonation as to the adultery.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Hannen were
counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr.
Thomson for the respondent.
Mr. E. James, in opening the case, stated that Mrs.
Place prayed fora judicial separation, instead of a disso-
lution of the marriage, because she was a Roman Catholic.
Her maiden name was Byrne, and she was the daughter
of Roman Catholic parents living at Rosemont, near
New Ross, in Ireland, and the respondent, T. Place, was
the son of a gentleman in Wales, and had been in the
army. They had frequent quarrels upon the subject of
the education of their children, Mrs. Place wishing them
to be brought. up as Roman Catholics, and Mr. Place,
who was a Protestant, insisting that they should be
brought up in the Church of which he was a member.
The learned counsel detailed various acts of cruelty with
which the respondent was charged, and said that he had
put on the record a justification of his conduct, on the
ground of his religious differences with his wife. The
adultery was committed with a servant in his employ-
ment.

Mrs. Madelina Place was then examined, and said her
family lived at Rosemount, near New Ross, in Wexford.
Captain Place was a friend of her brother, and she
' became acquainted with him in March, 1847, when he
was paying a visit in the neighbourhood. He proposed
to her in August, 1847, and they were married in Jude,
1645. She was a Roman Catholic, and there was a
distinct agreement before the marriage that any
children they might have should be educated in the
Roman Catholic religion. They lived at Dunhill,
in Waterford, up to 1852, and then removed to
Glen-lodge, near Carrick-on-Suir, where they remained
until May, 1858. There were three children of
the marriage—the eldest, a boy, born in June, 1849 ;
the second, also a boy, born in November, 1850 ; and
the third, a girl, born in February, 1855. After their
marriage they lived happily together until 1852. He
then forbade her going to chapel any more, and abused
her for bring a Papist, in the presence of the servant
man. He told her not to go to such blackguard and
infernal places. In 1853, when his brother visited
them, he was much enraged because the servants were
not at home, and strapped her down, and after scolding
her, struck her head against the wall and broke the
canvass partition. His brother spoke to him .about
his unkindness to her. On several occasions he used
violent language about her religion. In 185.5 she
was reading prayers to the servants, when he said he
would have no Catholic humbug going on in
his house, and burnt the prayer-books. In 1856 there
was a dispute about one of the children being sent to
a Protestant clergyman, and she was not allowed to
take her meals with him. On one occasion he flung
her from a chair to the ground, and pushed her out
of the room. In 18:5S he burnt her crucifix. In the
same year he struck her on the head with his open hand
and kicked her. In May, 1858, she removed from
Glen-lodge to lodgings he had taken for her at New
Ross, and then went with her children to her mother's
house. On the previous Sunday he had abused her,
called her a -- Papist, wished she was dead, and
struck her. She had not occupied the same bedroom
with him since February, 1858, when he burnt the
crucifix.

In cross-examination Mrs. Place said that her mother
insisted before the marriage that the children should be
brought up as Roman Catholics. She only married
Captain Place on that understanding. They were
all with her mother now. They had been baptised
in the Church of Rome, but not surreptitiously. Her
husband was very anxious to have them educated
by the Rev. Mr. Drought, a clergyman of the Established
Church; but she would not consent. Her husband was
very fond of field sports, and was frequently out hunt-
ing. She sometimes, but not generally, dined with the
children in the middle of the day. She stayed at the
lodgings at New Ross for about a week, and then went
to her mother's. She wrote and told her husband that,
as she had obtained undeniable evidence of his adultery,
she would no longer live with him.
Kitty Riley, a girl who had been in the service of
Captain and• Mrs. Place, proved that on the sth of May,
1858, she was delivered of a child, of which Captain
Place was the father. She told Father Dee, a Roman
Catholic clergyman, and Mr. Byrne, her mistress's
brother, of her connection with Captain Place.
Mr. Byrne and the Rev. Thomas Dee proved that in
May, 18.58, Kitty Riley had told them and Mrs. Place
that Captain Place was the father of her child.
Mr. Serjeant Parry said he did not intend to dispute
the adultery.

Sir C. Cresswell asked whether it would be worth
while to leave the question of cruelty to the jury, as the
adultery would entitle the petitioner to a decree.
Mr. Serjeant Parry said that Captain Place was
anxious to deny on his oath that he had ever ill-treated
or injured his wife. There were many scenes between
them, arising from religious differences ; but he wished
to deny that he had treated her with cruelty.
Sir C. Cresswell said this was not the first time since
ho had presided in that court that he had observed that
some gentlemen appeared to be quite careless as to any
imputation on their morality, but to be very sensitive to
the charge of cruelty. If the parties desired it, he would
leaN e the question of cruelty to the jury; but, however it
was decided, the decision must give pain to one of them.
It was then arranged that a verdict should be taken for
the petitioner upon the issues of adultery and condona-
tion, and that the jury should be discharged upon the
other issues.
The verdict was entered accordingly.

A MINISTER'S DAUGHTER AND HER DRUNKEN
HUSBAND.
ROMER V. HOMER.
Dr. Phillimore, -Q.C., and Dr. Swabey appeared for
the petitioner ; and Dr. Wa►nbey for the respondent.
Mrs. Ann Homer prayed for a judicial separation on
the ground of the adultery of her husband, Charles H.
Homer. Mrs. Homer was the daughter of the Rev. T.
Caddy, the incumbent of a parish in Cumberland, and in
July, 1851, she married Mr. Homer, a glass manufacturer
at Birmingham. There is one child of-the marriage sur-
viving. They cohabited at High Barnes, in Shropshire,
until 1856. Mr. Homer was a man of very intemperate
habits, and in March, 18,56, a deed of separation was
signed, and they have since lived apart. Mr. Homer
has since been living in adultery with a woman named
Garrett..

No evidence being called in support of the respondent's
plea denying the charge,
The jury returned a verdict for the petitioner.

A marriage will take place daring the approaching
summer, between Colonel Leith Hay, C.B. (93rd High-
landers), of Leith Hall, Aberdeenshire, and Miss Hamil-
ton, of Craiglaw, Wigtonshire.

THE Exonus.—For nearly two years or so it was
pretty generally supposed that the exodus of the Irish
peasantry was accomplished, and that until another
generation arose we should hear no more of that mar-
vellous decrease in the population which followed the
famine of 1845-6. The figures, however, supplied by
Mr. Donnelly's last statistics have dissipated that idea,
and their truthfulness has been corroborated by the
accounts which have come from the provinces since the
opening of the emigration season. The tide of emigra-
tion has set in in right earnest from the western province.
THE RIFLEMAN WHO SHOT THE DOG.—The parties
in this case, which has attracted so much attention, have
been discovered. On Tuesday a solicitor applied for a
summons against Mr. John Kcrrison, a member of the
Surrey Rifles, for cruelly torturing his d9g by shooting
it. Information was given to the police, and a reward
was offered for the discovery of the parties ; and it was
only through Kerrison having mentioned the circum-
stance to some of his companions that they were traced.
Mr. Ingham granted a summons against Kerrison, who
fired the gun ; and also for the attendance of his three
companions as witnesses, viz., Air, E, ►Sykes, Mr, R.
Bartrum, and Mr. R. J. Joao,

Alderman Holme to prove that, where the privilege was
r±a4crli tlr!, tsetblic either abused it, or dispaced the
Mr. STEAINS supported the motion, having pelle6t
confidence in the Health Committee.
GLAI>STONE held that Mr. Piatin had sotight to
mystifythe Council and dathage the Health Com-
mittee by mixing up the cost of the WA, the cost of
the building, the widening of siketfs, and the irriprove-
thent of approaches, which were separate and distinct
matters, and required to be so dealt with.
Mr. Alderman STEWART contended that the plans
required very much consideration. He would not con-
demn or applaud the plans ; but he must say there were
some very objectionable features in them, and should
therefore oppose the motion.
Alderman BENNETT supported the motion, on the
ground that the public would derive great convenience
from the concentration of the whole of the public
offices.

Mr. JEFFERY took exception to Alderman Bennett
addressing the Council, on the ground that he had sold
land to the Corporation, and was, therefore, an interested
party.
_ _

The TOWN-CLERK, on being appealed to, said tha
Alderman Bennett was quite in order.

Alderman BENNETT complained that the gentleman
who had interrupted him had spoken eleven times
that day. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
It being now five o'clock, Alderman Cooper moved,
and Alderman Woodruff seconded, the adjournment of
the debate, but were met with loud cries of "Vote."
On a division, two only voted for the motion.
Alderman CoorEn then claimed his right to address
the Council.

Alderman -Cooper laughed so immoderately that he
was compelled to sit down, and Mr. Sheil having
replied, Alderman Parker withdrew his amendment.