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

WINN'S V. 001/FRIN AND NOOIII.

Dr. Wambey conducted the petitioner's case.
This was a petition by Charles Ferdinand Ludwig
Oeoffrie. in which he charged his wife, Sarah Juliana
Ooffrie, with having committed adultery with Morris
Moore. Mr. Goffrie is a musician by profession; he
married the respondent in 184.5, and cohabited with her
in various parts of London' and had one daughter by her.
In October, 1552, when they were in lodgings at Charing
Gross, Mrs Goffrie suddenly left her home. She has
Dime been living by herself in -different lodgings at the
west-end, but has received visits from Morris Moore, and
in Oct., 111153, she was delivered of • child, of which he
owned that be IVY the father. .

Dr. Dud, who was acquainted with all the parties,
stated that Mrs. Goffrie wu delivered of • child in Oc-
tober, 11013, at his house, in Osnaburghvitreet, and that
Morris Moore visited her there. In answer to questions
put by the Court, he said that the reason assigned by
Mrs. Goffrie for the separation was the general ill treat-
ment she had suffered from her husband; that Morris
Moore and Goffrie were formerly on intimate terms ; and
that when Mrs. Goffrie went away she took the child
with her. Ile knew nothing personally about the cause
of the 'operation.

The petitioner was then examined by their Lordships,
and said he had always lived on very affectionate terms
with his wife until about ten days before she left him,
when they had some words about her receiving the visite
of Mon-is Moore, to which he oNected. She left him
without his knowledge, and he did not know where she
went. She was a pianist., and, as she had no time to at-
tend to her child, he sent it to school at Portsmouth.
She took it from school when she went away, and be
heard nothing of them until shout eight mouth's after-
wards, when she sent him a bill for the child's schooling.
She was then living in Bryanston-street. He regained
palmation of the child, and it has since been in his
custody.
The Judge-Ordinary said that the Court bad enter-
tained some suspicions before the examination of the
petitioner; but, those suspicions having been removed
by his evidence, the marriage would be dissolved.
The co-respondent moat pay the costs.

MAITHEWS v. MATTHEWS.

Dr. Spinka appeared for the petitioner.
In this case the Judge-Ordinary had allowed the
petition to be proved by affidavit. It appeared that the
respondent was a commercial traveller, and married the
petitioner in 1833. that they lived together in North
Wales and at Shrewsbury until 1839, that he then de-
serted her, and that in December, 18A8, he committed
bigamy and adultery with a penion named Pemberton,
and is now undergoing the imprisonment to which he
was sentenced for that offet,...
. . .

—T-1; Court di..olved threnarriage•—•
!HALE r. NIALN AND HOLLAND.

Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Neale is • pianoforte dealer and toner at Peter-
borough, and he married Millicent Monk in January,
ISM. They resided at • house about a mile from his
place of business, and they lived very happily until the
beginning of the present year, when he discovered that
she had been for several months carrying on an adults.

roils intercourse with Edwin Holland, • sergeant in the
rural police. lie immediately separated from her end
filed this petition.
Their I.ordshils dissolved the marriage, witk ousts
against the co-respondent.