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

GRIFFITH V. GRIFFITH.

Dr. Tristram was counsel for the petitioner.
In January, 18.57, the petitioner, who is the son of a
furniture broker near Golden square, married the res-
pondent and lived with her in lodgings in Windmill.
street. He earned 15e. a week in his father's employ-
ment. She took to drinking and became a oonfirnied
drunkard. After living together for about seven
months they parted, and she had • room rent-free given
her, with an allowance of Is. • week. In April, 1858,
he found out that she was leading a life of prostitution.
It appeared that the petitioner had lived with the
respondent for six months before they were married.
Their Lordships were not satisfied with the evidence
as to the identity of the respondent with the person
proved to be leading a disreputable life, and said they
would take time to consider whether they would dismiss
the petition or allow it to stand over for further evi-
dence.

The Judge Ordinary made some severe comments
upon the negligence with which attorneys very often got
up their cases in this court.

Novnina ZI.
BELLEW r. BELLEW AND IDSN.

This was a petition by the Rev. Mr. Bellew for a dis-
solution of marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery
with the co-respondent, who was in the civil service of
the East India Company.
Dr. Tristram moved that the case might be proved by
affidavit. The marriage took place in IS-IT, and in
Irkid, when the petitioner discovered the adultery, he
and the respondent were living in India. In November,
1853, he brought an action for erius. con, in the
Supreine Court of Calcutta against Mr. Eden, who
allowed judgment to go by default, but appeared by
counsel on the question of datiomes, and had to pay
5,000 rupees and costs. Mr. liellew then instituted •
suit on the Ecclesiastical side of the Supreme Court of
Calcutta, and obtained a decree for a divorce a mom,
et Moro. He then took steps to pass a Divorce llill
through Parliament, and witnesses were examined in
India in Drill in support of that Bill, but he MU unable
to proceed for want of sufficient funds. Some of the
witnesses were now in England and some in India.
Dr. Swabey appeared for the co-respondent, who had
put in an answer, praying that be might not be saddled
with costs.

Sir C. Cresswell.—l do not ate why the witnesses in
England should not give their evidence riril rum The
proper order will be that you examine orally such wit-
nesaes as are in this oountry and can be brought before
the Court, and that you have leave to read affidavits
Irons the witnesses examined in the previous proceed-
ings, and who are abroad, such affidavits to be wade in
this cause.

NOV KM BER 24.

(Before the JUDGE-ORDINARY, Mr. JUitioo WIGHTMAN,
and Mr. Justice BIL[8.)

GRIFFITHS r. GRIFFITHS.
This was • petition by • husband for a dissolution of
marriage, on the ground of his wife's adultery. It had
been part heard, and stood over for further evidence as
to the identity of the respondent with a person who was
proved to have been lately leading a life of pro•titution.
The facts were reported at the previous hearing.
Dr. Tristram now examined a witness on the question
of identity, and
. . .

The Court dusolved the marriage.
EVANB C. ZVANEL

Mr. Littler appeareci for the petitioner.
The parties in this case were married in Jane, 185.1,
at Liverpool, and cohabited there and at Analwich, in
North Wales, where Mr. Evans carried on business as a
sail-maker. They had one child. In 1855 Evans went
to Australia for the purpose of digging for gold. He
left his wife in • confectioner's shop, remitted money to
her from Australia, and they corresponded. In 1857
she sold off her stock and furniture, and went to Bir-
kenhead. She there took lodgings, and it was proved
that she had on various occasions passed the night with
different men.

Some letters were read written by Mrs. Evans to her
husband from Birkenhead, earnestly entreating him to
return home and not go away any more. He did return,
but did not reach England till May, 1858.
The sister of the petitioner, in answer to questions
put by their Lordships, stated that Evans had chipped
as a sailmaker for the voyage out and home when he
sailed for Australia; that he had left his wages to his
wife, and bad sent her £2O, and that when she sold her
furniture she went into service at Birkenhead. he fur-
ther stated that her brother had a child by the respond-
ent before they were married.
Their Lordships required further evidence u to the
circumstances of the petitioner's departure for Australia
and his not returning by the same vessel.
Mr. Littler asked whether their Lordships would exa-
mine the petitioner at the next bearing.
The Judge-Ordinary said it was his settled opinion
that the Court could not with propriety examine a peti-
tioner in support of his petition. It wouid be monstrous
to suppose that the Legislature had conferred on the
judges the power of calling a petitioner in support of his
petition, and not that of calling a respondent in support
of her answer. Even if they had the power, he
thought they would exercise a wise discretion by refus-
ing to use it.
The case was ordered to stand over until the next
sittings.