The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-02-06 00:00:00

TILE GOITER DIVORCE CAUSE

In the Court for the Trial of Divorce and Matri-
monial Causes, on Thllroday, Sir James Hannen
had before him the can se of Gower v. Gower, Harris
and Rhodes, in which the petitioner, Alfred
William Gower, seeks a divorce on the ground of
his wife's adultery with the two co-respondents.
The respondent filed an answer, traversing the
charges, and pleaded also that there had been
connivance on the part of the petitioner. The
co-respondents did not appear.
Dr. Spinks, Q.C., and Mr. R. R. Bayford were
counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. Pritchard for
the respondent.

Dr. Spinks, Q.C., opened the case at great length
and referred to the fact that the petitioner
originally brought a suit for divorce some years
ago, and it was tried before. Lord Penzance, the
then Judge Ordinary. The petitioner, at the
time of his marriage, was a coal merchant, living
at Dudley, Worcestershire, and he was married
to the respondent on the 12th of December, 1865,
and for some months afterwards then lived at the
petitioner's father's. As there was some disgree-
ment as to the respondent's housekeeping, she
and her husband went to reside at Dennis Park,
where a child was born. They afterwards re-
moved to Rockshill House, Brierley Hill, where
they resided for some time. Dr. Spinks then
referred to matters that would he proved in evi-
dence, and went on to read a vast number of letters
which bore on the case.

The petitioner, Alfred William Gower, was ex-
amined, and spoke to the facts attending his
marriage withtho respondent. In 1865 they went
to reside at Dennis Park, and afterwards they
lived at Rookshill House, Brierley Hill. His wife
took to drinking, and owing to her habits he got
into difficulties, and his home was sold up for a
debt of her contracting. Subsequently, his wife
went home to her father's, and witness was sum-
moned for her maintenance. He afterwards
instituted a suit for divorce, but the petition was
dismissed. In June, 1873, he first heard of his
wife living with Harris; but for a long time he
was not able to get definite information. He
afterwards heard that a man named Bellingham
had made certain communications, but he had no
communication with that person. He afterwards
was in communication with a person named
Harvey,_ who was then at Liskeard.

Mr. k`honaas Gower, father of the petitioner said
hat he was a coal merchant and contractor, resid-
ing at Lodge Farm, Dudley. The letters placed
in his hands were in the handwriting of the
respondent. After the marriage the petitioner
and the respondent came to reside at witness's
house, but he disapproved of her conduct as house-
keeper. Matters went on very badly, and his son,
the petitioner became involved in difficulties.
Petitioner now acted at his clerk at the Coal
Exchange, London, where he had an office. At
Brierley Hill a man, named Bellingham, came and
said that he could give some information about
the respondent's conduct, and witness referred
him to his solicitors. Witness heard from his
solicitor that Bellingham would give information
if he was rewarded for it, and witness told Mr.
Owen to promise the reward. In doing so witness
acted quite independently of his son.
Cross-examined: The first he heard of Bellingham
was by that person coming to his office.
To Sir James Hannen : Subsequently he heard
that the reward asked for the information was
£l5O. It did not strike him that such a large sum
being asked would have a tendency to get evidence
that was not truthful.

Mr. Thomas Owen, solicitor to the petitioner,
said that Harvey had formerly been a clerk with
attorneys who acted in the first trial for Mrs.
Gower. He heard that 'Harvey had. gone to
Liskeard, and wrote to him there. Harvey replied,
and the petitioner went down to Cornwall to see
him, and nake enquiries. After his return the
petitioner gave witness the name of Rhodes. The
witness then went on to give evidence as to the
receipt of certain letters which passed between
him and Harvey, and as to that person delivering
up certain documents. Witness did not give him
anything, nor was any promise direct or indirect,
given._ _ _

- To the Judge: He had simply given him the
ordinary evidence money and allowance for coming
to London last term. Cross-examination continued:
When he had the letters he laid them before coun-
sel. Mr. Thomas Gower went with Rhodes to
identify the responent. Witness first heard about
Bellingham on the 11th or 12th of March, 1874.
petitioner's father came and said that Bellingham
had been to him, and that he had referred him to
witness as his solicitor. When a reward was
spoken of, the witness said that the only way a
reward could be given was just as if it had to be
given for the discovery of a larceny. The amount
of the reward was not at first mentioned. When
Bellingham came to witness he said that he could
prove that for months past Harris and the respon-
dent had committed adultery. Witness said that
he must produce the evidence, and when Belling-
ham mentioned a reward witness said that he
could not have one until the evidence was brought'
He then promised to bring the evidence. At that
interview no more passed. On the 24th of March
last Bellingham and Harris both came to witness.
He said that whatever statement was made must
be made voluntarily, and he should not offer them
anything directly or indirectly. A statement was
then made. That statement was taken dow n
in writing and witness now produced it.
The Registrar readthe statement of Harris, which
referred to the death of his wife at Brierley Hill.
He wanted a housekeeper, and advertised for one.
Amongst the applicants for the situation was Mrs.
Gower. It was agreed that she should come on trial.
and she stated that her name was Pearson, and that
she had lost her husband for two years. It was
agreed that she was to have ss. per week. The de-
ponent found out who she was from the detectives.
She took good care of the children, and after two
months she and the deponent agreed to sleep to
gether.

- Mr. Owen's examination continued: When he
seved subpcena upon Bellingham nothing was said
about costs. When Harris was subpcenaed there in
November he several times asked witness for money,
which he always refused to give him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pritchard: There was no
agreement with Harvey that he was not to pay the
costs of the suit.

Sir James Hauuen : Do you call any Witnesses,
Mr. Pritchard?

Mr. Pritchard: No, my lord. My instructions
are to offer any assistance that may be necessary to
the Court, and to submit to any decree the Court
may think right.

William Rhodes, clerk on the Great Western
Railway at Maidenhead Station, deposed that in 1870
he was in the same! employment. He was in the
habit of passing the Seven Stars public House, kept
by Soloman Pearson. He there met Mrs. Gower
whom he knew as Miss Pearson. She served the
customers, and witness 'became intimate with her,
and promised her marriage. On several cccasions
they took walks together to a place known as the
Castle. Twice—namely, in July and in August,
1871—witness committed adultery with her.
Cross-examined: On the last of these occasions he
knew she was a married woman.

By Sir James Han nen : He did ru t at any time
hear from Bellingham that he had been promised
£l5O. to procure evidence of the adultery.
William Harvey, now residing at Liskeard, said he
was formerly clerk[to Mr. Collis, who acted as soli-
cLor to the respondent in the former suit of Gower
v. Gower. He proved various letters.
Cross-examined: Matters which Mrs. Gower had
told him were communicated by him subdequ ently to
the other side. His reason for doing so wai that he
believed Mr. Gower was an injured man.
Henry Frederick Hodgson said he was a medical
man, practising near Cradley Heath. He knew
Harris, who resided near him. Harris asked him to
attendhis housekeeper, Mrs. Gower, and witness did
so. She was then cohabiting with Harris.
Johu Lewis Harris said his father was the co-res-
pondent. Recollected the respondent, who passed as
Mrs. Davis, coming-, to live in his father's house.
At first she slept with his younger brother. About
five months after she came there she Comm mood to
sleep with his father.

John!Harris, the co-respondent, said his wife died
in;the early part of 1873. He advertised for a house-
keeper, and the respondent, under the name of Mrs.
Davis, applied for the situation. At the end of
four or five months after she came Mrs. Gower be-
gan to sleep with him. That was before Christmas,
and continued after this suit was commenced.
Cross-examined: He first knew that Mrs. Davis
was Mrs. Go ,vcr from two detectives coming to make
enquires. When Bellingham asked him for inform-
ation as to the adultery, he told him he could not
afford to lose his time. It was thereupon agreed
that six months after the trial, if Mr. Gower were
successful, witness was to to receive £l5O.
Mrs. Sarah Perks deposed to keeping the Beehive
Inn, at Cradle), Heath, near where Harris resided.
Both Harris and respondent had admitted to her
that they had lived together as man and wife.
Jeremiah Bellingham examined, said he lived near
to Harris at Cradley Heath, and was acquainW with
him in March, 1874. Harris came to him and
asked him to communicate with Mr. Gower, sen., as
to proving the respondent's adultery. When the
matter was proposed to the solicitor, Mr. Owen, and
money was asked, Mr. Owen said he would rather
lose the case than obtain evidence on such terms.
Ellen Gower, thelrespondent, was sworn, and pos-
itively denied the alleged acts of adultery with
Rhodes.

Sir James Hannon, in giving judgment, commented
severely on the means which had been used in pro-
curing evideneu for the petitiontr. The aCultery
with Harris Wag not in dispute; but the fact 01.11150