The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-01-23 00:00:00

RENARKABLE SHEFFIELD DIVORCE
SUIT.

In the Divorce Division of the High Court of
Justice the suit by Joseph Thompson Glossop for the
dissolution of his marriage with Ellen Glossop, on
the ground of her adultery with Walter Flather, has
been tried. The respondent and the co-respondent
denied the charge against them, and both made a
counter charge of adultery against the petitioner; and
the respondent further pleaded that her husband had
been guilty of wilful neglect, wilful separation, con-
nivance, conduct conducing to adultery, and Condona-
tion, all of which the petitioner denied. The petitioner
claimed damages against the co-respondent.
Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., and Dr. Pritchard appeared
for the petitioner; Mr. Finlay, Q.C., and Mr.
Middleton for the respondent; and Mr. Bayford,
Q.C., and Mr. Richards for the co-respondent.
The petitioner is an accountant and financial agent
at Sheffield, and he there fills the office of secretary
to a loan society. The co-respondent is a merchant
and manufacturer at Sheffield, and a councillor of
that borough. The petitioner and the respondent
were married in October, 1877, she having kept a
school before their marriage. The co-respondent is a
widower, and he and they were on visiting terms. On
the 11th of October, 1885, Flather was invited to
Glossop's house after a flower show at which all the
parties were present. He slept at Glossop's house
that night, having sat up with Mrs. Glossop for some
time after her husband retired to bed. According to
the testimony of witnesses examined in support of the
petition, both Mrs. Glossop and Flatber were under
the influence of drink that night; and a young woman
named Lilian Shipman kept watch over them after
Glossop went to bed. Shipman, who was a barmaid
on a visit to the Glossops, stated that before going to
bed Glossop requested her not to leave Mrs. Glossop
and Flather alone that night, and she complied
with his request. Flather remained at Glossop's
house not only on the night of the 11th, but all day
on the 12th, except when attending the flower show.
Glossop went out in the evening of the latter day;
and Mrs. Glossop and Flather were alone together in
the dining-room of the house till an early hour on
the morning of the 13th, when Glossop returned home
and violently turned him out in consequence of a
communication made to him by Lilian Shipman and
a domestic servant. He accused Flather and Mrs.
Glossop of adultery, and told‘the latter that she must
leave his house next day. Evidence was given by the
domestic servant, by Lilian Shipman, and a police.
constable, which, if believed, established the charge
of adultery against -Mrs. Glossop and Flather.
Mrs. Glossop went into the box and gave evidence
in support of her charges against her husband, but
her counsel did not ask her whether she had com-
mitted adultery with Flather. Mr. Bayford, in open-
ing the case for the 'alter, said that if the jury should
feel bound to find against him Mr. Flather would
have to blame himself for that result, because, while
denying adultery, he would admit that he had at-
tempted to take a liberty with Mrs. Glossop which
she refused to permit. Flather went into the witness
box and positively denied that he had either com-
mitted adultery with Mrs. Glossop or attempted to
take a liberty with her. On this, the learned Judge
asked him whether he had not been in court when
Mr. Bayford opened his case. Flather replied that
he had been. His lordship then asked him whether
he had not heard that passage in the learned
counsel's speech which has just been referred to.
Flather answered that he had not; but Mr. Bayford
at once said that he made the statement referred to
and that, of course, he had made it on instructions.
Mr. Justice Butt observed that the statement in Mr.
Bayford's speech was distinct, and no person would
suppose that it was founded on the learned counsel's
invention. The co-respondent also denied that be was
under the influence of drink on the night of the 11th of
August, 1885, and swore that every word of the evidence
of three witnesses as to improprieties between hire and
Mrs. Glossop on the following night was absolutely
false. The petitioner represented that almost from
the time of his marriage with the respondent she was
addicted to drink. She denied that assertion, but
said that she had taken to drink some four years ago,
her husband's conduct having driven her to it. The
adultery charged against the petitioner was with
Lilian Shipman, and women named Entwistle, Cross,
Franklin, and Charlesworth ; all of whom gave evi-
dence in denial of the charge. Some of them, how-
ever, made admissions of an intimacy with Glossop
such as is not usual between persons of opposite sax
who are not related to each other; but, according to
their testimony, manners in Glossop's house were so
free and easy that he used to kiss them in the presence
of his wife, and, as two witnesses stated, that at his
wife's own request he was in the habit of carrying up
the breakfast of one of them to her bedroom and
there remaining with her for a considerable time.
The woman Entwistle, in reply to the learned
Judge, said she was not separated from her
husband; but on cross-examination by Mr. Finlay
she admitted that proceedings by her husband for a
divorce against her were pending in me of the
American Courts. Franklin had been a governess in
the house of the Glossops, and subsequently was
there for four months as a guest on the invitation of
Mrs. Glossop. This was the person to whom he used
to carry up breakfast, and, she having denied all
familiarity except Glossop haviirg kissed her, she was
banded a letter by her to him commencing " My
dearest." Her explanation was that she had so
addressed him by mistake. Glossop was not asked to
deny his adultery when he was in the witness-box
giving evidence in support of his petition; but when
all the other witnesses as to the charges of adultery.
against him had been examined he again gave evi-
dence in which he positively denied adultery with
any one of the women whose names have been
stated. The hearing of the case extended over two
days. Mr. Bayford, Mr. Finlay, and Mr. Inderwick
having addressed the jury,
Mr. Justice Butt, in a very clear and forcible
summing up, told the jury that of the many repulsive
stories he had been obliged to listen to in that court
he did not think there had been any other which,
taken all round, was so repulsive as the one with
which he and the jury had to deal in this case. All
the parties to this suit had been guilty of gross mis-
conduct, and he did not see any one redeeming
feature in their course of action. If he had to decide
as to whose misconduct had been the worst he was
not sure that he should not say that of the husband.
At the same time it was not general misconduct but the
specific acts charged in the pleadings the jury had to con-
sider, and in coming to a finding on them they must be
guided by the evidence given in support of those
charges. As to damages, he said he should not
waste his breath or their time in saying more than
that the question was for the jury and not for him,
but that if he had to decide it he could not name any
coin which in his judgment would not. be immeasur-
ably in excess of anything to which the petitioner
was entitled.

The Jury, after a short consultation, found that the
respondent and the co-respondent had committed
adultery, and that the petitioner had not committed
adultery; but they found that the petitioner had
been guilty of connivance and of conduct conducing
to adultery, and they assessed no damages.
Mr. Justice Butt, on these findings, dismissed the
petition.