The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-06-04 00:00:00

COURT FOR QOR E 4,N5 MATRIMONIAL

CAUSES, Jtaxr3 f.'

<• •
(Before the Judge-Ordinary, Mr. Baffin Martin, and
Mr. Justice Wiles.)
JAQUIER V. JAQUIER.

Elizabeth JaqUier prayed for a dissolution of her
marriage with Louis Jean Jaquier on the' ground of
adultery, coupled with cruelty. The respondent denied
the allegation, and, es to one act of cruelty, pleaded
that if he had Cdidniitted it he had received gross

proiwea,ion.
Mrs Sefgethit IlaykS and Mr. Pete..igen
,appeared for
the petitioner; Br. *lie add.Hoffulari for the
respondent.
Mrs. Jaquier stated that she was married in December,
1846, at Camberwell. Her husband kept a public-house
in the Haymarket, and she lived there with him. She
had had two children, one of whom was dead. Her
husband began to assault her within,a month of the
wattage; dud he
.tepeateal4 struck 'her. In 1847,
when she was hi fariff,,W,alii he sttuck her several
severe blows with a riding 1'853',; thq,OVed
for a few months at Milton, near Gravesend. One evert-
ing, as she was walking on the pier with her child and
a servant, she met some friends, with whom she supped.
She returned home about twelve o'clock, and her hus-
band who had came from Landon unexpectedly daring her
Asencei dpeilecf the &lot and without saying a word,
knocked het down; She *US atienciedbi a (Woolf, and
was laid decit ten days. Othi night abed CludstuiriS, f 867,
lib was ad cress thdt get the liarmiaid td sleep
with her. in the znoining he broke, door,
opened the window, took all the clothes OZ her bled; and
9xposed her to the cold for half an hour. She was ill
for ten days. In February, 1858, she was unwell, and
Went to bed one night at twelve o'clock. Her husband
came up stairs to' her, told her she_ had no business to
go to bed so early, and threw a bronze candlestick at
her head. The servant interfered, and he took up a
knii*e slid threatened to cut her throat. Her brother
came tip and protected her. At the Mid of 1g55 they
hard some Words in the Presendedi a gentlentfifi tarried
Himell. He called her bad. namci, and threatened to
knock tier ddWn... Mr: Itinieg interfered, and said if he
sltruci her he would break his head. At the end of
1858 she separated frond flint. Ha had rlep't in the

same room with her for the previous five mouths.
This evidence was corroborated by some servants who
had lived with Mr. and Mrs. jaquier, and by Mrs.
Rimell.

Mrs. Blythin proved that her sister Fanny Jones had
formerly liVed in Mr. Jaquicr's service, that last year
she was living near Longacre, and that Mr. Jaquier
frequently visited her and carried on an adulterous
intercourse with her.

No evidence was called on the part of the respondent.

The Judge Ordinary said that the petitioner had esta-
blished cruelty of a very gross character indeed ; and,
adultery bating also been proved, she was entitled to a
decree of dissolutiati,

I'EFLGTJSON V. FERGIVEItig.

Mr: Whitaker Barry tas ddtinsel for the petitioner.

The Marriage is this cage tebic place to November,
1846, grid the parties coliabliad at Mill arid dritilsVy
and other places in the north. The husband was a
publican, arid Mrs. Ferguson stated that from the time
of the marriage Up, to their separation in 1859 he had
constantly ill4reated her in every way. Ile had fre-
quently knocked her down; he had kicked her, flogged
her with a clothes-line till She *Re alidost insensible,
and on several occasions she had left him in consequence
of his violence, but had been persuaded to return. In
1854 her father died, and she came into a little pro-
perty, out of which she had for some time supported
him. Last April he charged her with attempting to
poison him, and she finally separated from him.
It was also proved that the respondent frequented
houses of ill fame, and that after his wife separated from
him he Hied at Mill with Ann Walker, a young Wcirrind
who worked in a mill:

The doutt dissolved the marriage:
NETLEY V. NETLEt Ann SbilkiONS.

'Mr. Gates appeared for the petitioner.
Netley is .a labouring man. at Pulhorough Sussex.
He married the respondent in July, 1858. They let
out part of their house to lodgers, among whom was the
co-respondent SimmohB, d navvy. tin adultermis con-
nection was formed between Netley's wife and gimmons,
and on the 12th of April last two or three persons saw
them in bed together.
Their Lordships dissolved the marriage with costs
against the co-tespondent:

BISON U. DlXdg

Mr. Kind= appeared for the petitioner.
The petitioner; fdinaerly Elizabeth Sharp, was Mar-
ried id 'Ole resiiendent, the son df
tanner, at Walton-on-the-Mil, in Lancashire, in May,
1844. They cohabited at Liverpool, until September,
1849, when Dixon went to Melbourne, and started in
business as a commission agent. In July, 1852, he
there went through the ceremony of marriage with
Mary Amblia SMith, with whom he has since cohabited.

The niftifiage and 016 liigde4 vieio pieved Uy the
depositions of witnesses in Australia.

Mrs. Dixon was called to prove the allegation of
desertion, but she said that her husband had treated her
badly and was in embarrassed circumstances, and in
August, 1818, she left him of her own accord and went
to her mother's; She bad property settled on her, out
of which she had laid his delfts. She had no means of
support from him.

The .fudge Ordinary said the case as to desertion
failed, but a decree would be granted on the ground of
adultery coupled with bigamy.

GAINES V. GAINES AND HAYES.

Mr. E. Ward conducted the petitioner's case.
The petitioner was a varnish maker in London, and
he married the respondent in lqay, 1839. In 1844 she
eloped with the co-respondent, taking her sen, then
about four years old, with her.
James Gaines, the petitioner's son, proved that he had
lived with his mother and Hayes for the last sixteen

years. They occupied a one-roomed house. The room
contained two beds, and he slept in one, and his mother
and Hayes in the other.
Their Lordships granted a decree.
GUTTEItIDGE V. GUTTERIDGE.

Dr. Wambey was counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Mary Gutteridge ptaycd for a decree on the
ground of the adultery, coupled with the desertion, of
her husband, James Gutteridge.
The respondent was formerly a corn merchant. He
married the petitioner on the 19th of September, 1849,
add cohabited with her until the 13th of July, 1855, in
Lodge-road, Itegent's=park. Being unsuccessful in his
business, he became in 1844 a liVety-stable keeper and
horse dealer, and had dealings with Mr. Cooke, then
the proprietor of Astley's Theatre. He thus formed an
acquaintance with Miss Oceania Sprake, an actress at
that theatre, and he eloped With her on the 13th of
July, 1855. lie had told his wife's sister, Mrs. Gadsden,
who was staying in the house at the time, that he was
going to do something very wrong, for which his wife
would never forgive him, and that his soul was lost.
He went with Miss Sprake to America, and they
returned to England in 1858. Mrs. Gutteridgo was
then living in Bedfordshire. lie went to sos Mrs.
Gadsden, who lived in Pembrokeshire, and suggested
to her that his wife should get a divorce, as he wanted
to marry Miss Sprake. Mrs. Gadsden said that on the
evening of the 27th of September, 1858, he brought
Miss Sprake to her house and they slept together there.
Mr. Gadsden stated that, when Gutteridge brought
Miss Sprake to his house on the 27th of September, he
asked him how he could take such an unbounded liberty
as to bring with him a young person who had been his
ruin. He also said that if Miss Sprake remained he
should not sleep in the house. Miss Sprake and Gut-
teridge did remain, and he went out to sleep. The
next morning they went away together. He let Gut-
teridge have money to go to British Columbia on the
understanding that he should not take Miss Sprake.
He was Gutteridge's guardian, and his first wife was
Gutteridge's aunt. He and his wife had come to give
evidence very reluctantly, for it was a very unpleasant
business, and nothing of the kind had ever before hap-
pened in the family. (Laughter.)
Mrs. Gutteridge proved that her husband had never
contributed to her support nor offered to provide a home
for her since the date of the desertion. In answer to
their lordships' questions, she said that her sister did
not tell her that ber husband wanted a divorce, or that
he and Miss Sprake had slept together at her house.
Her reason for presenting the petition was to protect
some property to which she had lately become entitled.
The respondent was served with the citation at Vau-
couver's Island.

The Judge Ordinary said the suspicions of the Court
had been excited by some portions of the evidence, but
these suspicions had been removed by the explanation
of the petitioner. The husband was no doubt anxious
for a divorce, and therefore it was necessary to watch
the case with attention, to see whether it was a bony vi(lo
proceeding on the petitioner's part, or whether it was
taken in concert with the other party. The Court was,
however, satisfied that the petition was presented in
consequence of her own wish, and as she had established
the allegations it contained she was entitled to a decree.

INIILLARD V. MILLARD.

Dr. Spinks and Mr. Naylor appeared for the peti.

tioner.

The respondent was the son of a farmer in Cambridge-
shire, upon whose farm he worked, and the petitioner
was the daughter of a smaller farmer in the same county.
They were married in February, 1854. In 1856 she
had reason to.suspect that he was carrying on a criminal
intercourse with alarm servant of his father's, named
Martha Caid, and she reproached him, whereupon he
swore-at ber, said he would never live with her again,
left the house, and went to his father's. She and her
two children became chargeable to the parish.
Some farm servants proved that they had seen acts of
adultery between the respondent and Cald at various
times in 1857 and 1358.
The Court granted a decree.