The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-12-06 00:00:00

OVEN r. FIODIEN AMD MCHMIDT.

Mr. Price appeared for the petitioner.
This was • part-heart' petition by a husband for •
dissolution of marriage on the ground of his wife's adul-
tery.
A witness was now examined, and gave further evi
dence on the question of adultery.
The Judge-Ordinary, however, said that their Lord-
ships were not satisfied with the evidence. It appeared
that the petitioner went abroad in 1854 and did not
return until the passing of the Divorce Act; that he
then thought he could obtain • divorce on the ground of
his wife's intemperate habits, but finding that to be
impossible lie took steps to establish a case of adultery.
The direct evidence on that question was given
by two witnesses, a man named Frith and a women
named Rearden, who had both been in his employment ;
and it was remarkable that they both said when appli-
cation was first made to them that they knew nothing
about the matter, and only consented to give evidence
after an interview with the attorney's clerk. A third
servant, Mary Kingliam, a very respectable, decent
young woman, was unable to give direct evidence of the
adultery. Under all the circumstances of the case, their
Lordships were of opinion that the petition ought to be
dismissed.
TALDIEN M. TALDEN AND FRIENIAN.

Mr. Pearce was counsel for the petitioner.
The parties in this case were domestic servants, and
after their marriage in IMO lived in different families at
the west end of London as footman and housemaid. In
1449 the petitioner went to the north of England with the
family in whose service he then lived, and on his return
to London in IMO found that his wife had absconded.
In 1856 he discovered that she was living in adultery
with the co-respondent.
The Court dissolved the marriage.
BANNISTER C. BANNISTER AND DAVIES.

Dr. Phillimore. Q.C., and Mr. Macquecn appeared for
the petitioner; Mr. E. Ward for the respondent.
The petitioner was a lamp-maker at Birmingham. and
married the respondent in 1829. Ile was a widower and
she was a widow, and they both had families by their
previous marriages. He charged her with adultery, and
by her answer she denied the charge and recriminated,
accusing him of adultery subsequent to the adultery of
which he complained.
Some evidence was given in support of the petition,
but, a material witness being absent, the further hearing
of the case was postponed until the next sittings.
ROLLS' COURT, Cii.tsegar•l,ANt, Nov. 25.
(Before the MASTER of the Roi.t.n.)
From the Times of Saturday.
WOTHKRSTOON r. TURNER.

The plantiffs in this case, as the alleged exclusive
purchasers of Messrs. Fulton tx Co.'s right of manufac-
turing a Hour starch known as " Glenfield Double-Re-
fined Powder Starch," moved for an injunction against
the defendants from selling a starch in wrappers too
closely similar as to device, colour and description to
those used by the plaintiffs. No material objection
being offered to the motion the Court granted a per-
petual injunction against the defendants, subject to the
minutes of the order being settled by counsel on either
side. . . . .

Mr. K. Palmer appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. Druca
fur the defoulanui.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES, Now. 29.

&jure the JUDGE ORDINART, Mr. Baron WATSON, Mr.
Ji.SliCe HILL, and Conamon
BAOLIOTT V. HAI:GOTT AND THOMPSON.

Dr. Waddilove and Mr. Claydon were counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. Serjeant Piuot and Mr. H. T. Cole
for the respondent; and Mr. Davison and Mr. Kemp
for the co-respondent.
This was a petition by Samuel Maggott fore divorce
from Catherine Baggott on the ground of her adultery
with William Thompson. She pleaded a denial of the
adultery, that the petitioner had been guilty of cruelty,
that he had indeavoured to force her to sleep in the
seine bed with one of II ill sons by &former marriage, and
by his wilful misconduct had conduced to her adultery,
and that he had condoned it The co-respondent pleaded
a denial of the adultery.
The parties in this case were married in February,
1850, at Wolverhampton, where Haggett carried on busi-
ness as a brickmaker. He was a widower, between 40
and 50 years of age, with grown-up children by a former
marriage, and she was a girl of about 19. He has had
three children by her. They lived together until Jan-
uary 1854; they then separated, and remained apart
until April, 1855; they heed together again until the
following September, when they again parted ; she re-
turned to cohabitation in September, 1854, and in April,
1858 they finally separated. The case of the petitioner,
which was sppported by the evidence of his son by the
former marriage, and of servants who had lived with
him, was that Mrs. Haggett was a woman of very
drunken habits • that dunng the latter part of their
cohabitation Baggott kept • public-house, first the King's
Anna, and then the Baggott Anna, and that
she at last became so violent in her conduct in
consequence of drink that he was obliged to
part with her. Thompson was an inspector of police,
and a married man with a family. Ile frequented the
public-house kept by Bag,rott, and the statement of the
witnesses was that he there formed an improper intimacy
with Mrs. Banat, and that in 1858, after Baggott had
taken lodgings for her away from the Baggott Arms,
Thompson used frequently to go and pass the night
with her. One of the servants, named O'Boyle, who
had been in Mrs. Baggott's service, said that she and
Thompson arranged that a policeman should be set to
watch her house, and that when Baggott and his son
should conic in she should raise a cry of "Murder "and
rush out of the house. With regard to the charge
against Haggett and his son contained in the third plea
the account given by John Bauott, the son, a young
man upwards of 31/ years old, and corroborated hy
O'Boyle, was that he was in the habit of sleeping with
his father, who "was afraid of his life" (nun his wife's
violence, in order to protect him ; that one night in
March. 18.18, Haggett found her very drunk on his bed,
and told her to go to another room • that she refused,
and then he told his son to get into bed ; and that as he
was undressing, Mrs. Baggutt cried "Murder," ran out
of the house, called in a policeman, and gave Baggott
into custody. It was elicited in cross-examination that
Baggott was not a man of very sober habits, that he
frequently struck his wife when she aggravated him,
and that he had been tensor three times bound over to
keep the peva towards her. When she went into
lodgings she took charge of the children, and Baggott
allowed her 10s. • week, which was sent to her through
Thompson.
Mr. Serjeant Pigott addressed the jury for the res.
pendent, and Mr. Davison for the co-respondent, and
contended that O'Boyle, the only witness who gave
direct evidence of adultery, was unworthy of belief;
that it was Haggett, not lira. Baggott, who was given
to excessive drinking, and that he had been In the habit
of beating and ill-using her for years.
Some policemen and other witnesses said that Ilauott
and his wife were always fighting, that they often saw
marks of violence on her, and that they never saw her
drunk. The policeman who was called into her room
when the disturbance took place at her house, said that
he found John Haggett in her room with his trowsers
and shirt on, very dirty, Haggett standing by the bed-
side, and Mrs. Haggett in tears and in a state of great
excitement.

In the course of the cue a great many questions were
asked by the learned counsel for the respondents about
• person nanysl Bridgewater, who appeared to be very
actively engaged in getting up the petitioner's case. It
was elicited that he wee a clerk of Mr. Claydon, a
barrister, and that it was • London, not a Wolverhamp-
ton, attorney who was managing the case of the peti..
tioner in this oourt. An offer was made by Dr. Waddi-
love to put that gentleman into the witness-box to ex-
plain the apparent mystery, but
The Judge Ordinary declined to examine him, and
assured the learned doctor that no one had the least
suspicion that he was in any way mixed up in any unpro-
fessional transaction.

Mr. Baron Nt;ii—tZn, in summing up observed that
throughout the country there was a large body of moll-
eitoni able and willing to do their duty, and why these
people should hare gone to Bridgewater—not an attor-
ney's clerk, but something less respectable, he did not
know. Instead of going to a respectable solicitor, they
got hold of this person Bridgewater, who seemed to be
the clerk of a barrister engaged in the case, and Bridge-
water it was who got up the case—a mode of proceeding
that he had never heard of before, and that he hoped
never to hear of again as long as he eat in Westminster-
hall. His Lordship then read over the evidence upon
the different issues.
The jury deliberated for about three-quarters of an
hour, and then found that the respondent had not been
guilty of adultery with the co-respondent, and that the
petitioner had been guilty of cruelty
to the respondent.
Their lordships diaanaam the petition, and ordered
the Potionor to NI the costs both of the respondent and
Lb. 00-respondent.