The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-11-29 00:00:00

ZVANI T. iliaNti.

When this case was called on,
The Judge-Ordinary said,—No papers have been deli-
vered to the judges, and the cause must be struck out.
If attorneys will not attend to the notices published by
the Court, their clients must bring actions against them,
and they must pay for their negligence.
Mr. Littler, for the petitioner, said the attorney prac-
tised in the country. He hoped their Lordships would
allow the case to stand over until Thursday, as the wit-
nesses had been brought from North Wales.
. . „ .

The Judge-Ordinary.—That only makes the negligence
more abominable. We will let the cue stand over until
Thursday morning on these conditions,—that papers are
delivered this evening, and that the attorney enters into
an undertaking with the Registrar to pay out of his
own pocket the expense of detaining the witnesses in
town until Thursday.
The case accordingly stood over.
GOFFRIE r. Gorritts AND MOORE.

In this cam, which was called on later in the day, the
Judge-Ordinary made the same complaint as to the non-
delivery of papers to the judges.
Dr. Wainby appeared for the petitioner.
. . . .

Thiv cane was &Imo allowed to rstand over until Thum-
dsy, upon an undertaking being given by the attorney
to pay out of his Own pocket the expenses of the post-
ponement.

COOK V. COOK AND LUCY.

Mr. Waddilove conducted the petitioner's case.
The petitioner is employed in an attorney's office at
Stourport, in Woroe-ctershire, and married the respon-
dent in (ktober, 1845. They lived happily together for
several years, but she became addicted to drinking, and
in July, 1855, he found that she had pawned wine spoons
to provide herself with liquor. They then separated by
mutual consent, and he made her an allowance of 12s. a
week. She went to live with a Mr. Turner, • friend of
the family, who keeps an hotel at Birmingham, but she
drank to such an elects, and was so loose in her general
behaviour, that he would not let her stay in the house.
She went into lodgings and was visited by Limy, whose
acquaintance she had Made at Mr. Turner's. It was
proved that she there carried on an adulterous inter-
course with him. Lucy was described as a "gentleman
out of a situation," and has since enlisted.
Their Lordships dissolved the marriage.
PINI4ON V. PENHOM AND CLARK.

Mr. Maucaulay, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Pritchard),
appeared for the petitioner.
The marriage in this case took place at Tewkesbury in
1845, the petitioner being then in a good situation as a
working smith, and the respondent a huly's-maid. They
lived together in various places until 1853, and had two
children. In May, 1853, they came to London and took
lodgings in Munster-square. The landlady noticed that
dining Yemeni's absence at his work Mrs. Pensom was
constantly •isited by Clark, a watchmaker at Hitchin,
where the Pensosns had previously lived. He used to
conic on a certain day of tha week and take her out, and
on other days he wrote to her. In August, 1853, the
landlady communicated to her husband her suspicions
that Mrs. Pension' and Clark were carrying on a criminal
intercourse. He told Pensoni, who, in consequence, re-
mained at home one morning later than usual, and inter-
cepted a letter from Clark to hia wife, full of the most
affectionate expressions, and ending with "your loving,
constant, true, ami ever most affectionately till death."
Pension] did not sleep with his wife that night, and the
next day while he was at his work she eloped. She has
since lived in adultery with Clark, by whom she has
had children. Clark se a married man, and when he
went away with Mrs. Pensom lie left his own wife
chargeable to the parish.
The Court dissolved the marriage,
Two of the cases in to-day's list were struck out in
consequence of no one appearing in thens, and two
others were postponed.

(Before the JUDOI ORDINARY, Mr. JUNTICII WIGHT.
MAN, and Mr. Justice BtLan.)
RODEN v. RODIN AND 'SCHMIDT.

Mr. Price appeared for the petitioner.
This was • petition by James Soden, an upholsterer,
for a dissolution of marriage. The marriage took place
in March, 1848, and the parties lived together, first near
Fitzroy-square, then in Great Portland-street, where
Mr. Soden carried on business until August, 1854, end
they had two children. Mrs. Soden became addicted to
drinking and so misconducted herself that in August,
1854, Mr. Soden sees obliged to separate from her. He
gave up his business and was absent from the country
until the latter end of 1857. On his return he
coveted that in 1853 Mrs. Soden had committed
adultery with the co-respondent, • German, then in his
employment, and lie filed this petition.
Samuel Frith, who was also in the petitioner's employ.
meat in 1853, proved that he had seen an sat of
adultery committed by Mrs. Soden and Schmidt. He
did not mention it to Mr. Sodon until about • twelve.
month ago, because Mr. &dim had trouble enough
about his wife without it.

Other witnesses gave evidence of Mrs. &don's
unken habits, and of familiarities between her and
Schmidt.
_

Their Lordships adjourned the case for further evi-
dence as to the adultery.

RONLIT V. BOWLZT.

Mr. Wilde, Q.C.' and Mr. Alai:queen conducted the
petitioner's ease. Dr. Wambey watched the rase for
the reapundent, Mr. Rowley, who appeared, but put in
no answer. _

In 1851 the petitioner, then Miss Theresa Caroline
Bishop, was introduced to the Hon. Hugh Rowley, a
son of the late Lord lengfonl, an Irish peer, at Hyde,
in the Isle of Wight. Shin tly afterwards he proposed,
and was accepted, and they were married at Paddington
in January, 1852. They went immediately after the
marriage to Paris, and remained there for three weeks.
According to the evidence of Mrs. Rowley, her husband
soon began to treat her with great harshness, and on
one occasion, about three weeks after the marriage,
locked her up in a sitting room from 7 o'clock in the
evening until four the following inorping without 6re
or candles. They went from Paris to Calais for • few
days and there he beat her. They neat visited Brussels.
Daring their stay they visited Waterloo, and on the
journey home he tore her bonnet from her head, threw
it into the road, and forced his hat over her eyes.
From Brussels they went to Frankfort, travelling an •
compartment of a railway carriage by themselves. He
kept kicking her during the journey because, as be said,
some one had looked at her at the station. When she
arrived at Frankfort she fainted, and was taken to an
betel. She &eked for a glass of water on coming to her
lenges, and he forced • spoonful of salt down her throat.
They afterwards returned to Paris and travelled by dili-
gence from Strasburg. The journey occupied 20
hours, and he did not allow her to get out
of the carriage all the time. She mentioned various
other acts of ill usage. In March, 1852, while
they were at Boulogne, he cut off her hair,
saying he did so became she prized it. About the
same time he pulled her out of bed when she was ill,
and threatened to strike her with • meat chopper. He
also refined to let • doctor attend her, and she sent for
one without his knowledge. In January, 1863, they
were at Diunda/k, in Ireland. where a regiment in which
he then held a commission, the 16th Lancers, was
quartered. Among other modes of ill treatment which
he had practised, he never allowed her to leave the
house. He told her that the officers of his regiuient had
held • sham court-martial upon him, because be had
boasted of beating his wife. The result was that in the
following May he left the army. They afterwards lived
together at Brussels for 13 months, but he was in the
constant habit of going away and leaving her for • week
at a time. During • part of the years 1854 and 1855 she
lived with her mother and with Mr. and Mrs. Gye, who
are friends of her family. Mr. Rowley made frequent
promises of amendment, and at the bennin_g of 1856
they again lived together in lodgings in Irrner Berkslel-
street. On the 24th of May, 1856, he went away. Wing
be would return in • few days and take her abroad, mid
leaving an address to whlcli she could write. She did
write several letters, but received no answer, and Dover

saw nor heard scything of him until a few months ago.
She said that lii had never given her as much as a six-
pence from thetime of their marriage. She prayed for
a decree on tie grounds of adultery, desertion, and
cruelty.
It was proved by other witness that Mr. Rowley, after
leaving hui wife, had gone to live with • Mrs. Green. a
widow, at the louse of her mother in Edinburgh, and
that froni May, I, until April, 185"9, he and Mrs.
Green cohabited as man and wife at Ipplepen, in
Devonshire. In April, 1859, Mrs. Green died, and he
left the place.
The Judge OsUnary intimated that it would be
unnecessary to cal further evidence of cruelty, as their
Lordships were "'fished with the evidence of adultery
and desertion. I; was very likely that Mrs. Green
believed that she vas the lawful wife a the respondent
and never beard of the existanoo of Mrs. Rowley. The
marriage would be dissolved, and the respondent con•
deumed in costs.