The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-04-10 00:00:00

AN INFANT'S DIVORCE CASE:

In the Divorce Division, before Mr. justice Butt,
the case of Butler v. Butler and Shergold was heard.
t was the petition of William James Hamilton
Butler, a clerk in the Ordnance Survey Office, who
sought a divorce by reason of his wife's adultery with
the co-respondent, William Shergold. Both Mr. and
Mrs. Butler being under age, they appeared by their
parents as guardians. Answers were filed denying
the charge, and the respondent alleged connivance,
cruelty, and desertion on the part of her husband.
All witnesses were ordered out of court. Mr. Mid-
dleton, wha appeared for the petitioner, said that
both the husband and the wife were very young
indeed at the time of their marriage, he being eighteen,
and the wife was almost a child, fifteen years of age.
Mr. Butler, who was only earning 18s. a week, lived
with his father, an engraver in the Ordnance Survey
Office at Southampton. In 1883 he made the ac-
quaintance of Mrs. May and her daughter (the re-
spondent). In August of that year Mrs. May went
to he petitioner's father and told him that her
daughter was enceinte, owing to the conduct of his
son, and begged that a marriage might be brought
about. Ultimately the petitioner and respondent
were married on the 3rd September, 1883. Mrs.
May agreed that the young husband should live at
her house, and that he should put by as much money
as possible for furniture. That arrangement was
broken from the very first, he being called upon to
pay 15s. out of his 18s. a week for his board and lodg-
ing. A child was born on the 7th March, 1881. Re-
monstrances were made on the part of the petitioner as
to the money he was to pay Mrs. May, who told him
that unless he found the 15s. a week he would have
to leave the house. Subsequently he left Mrs. May's,
and allowed his wife Bs. 6d. a week. In the course
of last year Mr. Butler's father had his suspicions
aroused by seeing his daughter-in-law walking about
High-street, Southampton, with bad companions. Con •
sequently he had her watched, and these proceedings
were instituted. The petitioner was called, and bore
out the opening statement of counsel. In his evi-
dence he said that it was arranged that he should put
by 3s. a week for furniture. Mr. Justice Butt: Then
you would be a long time before you furnished a
house. (Laughter.) In answer to further questions,
it was elicited that a deed had been drawn up between
the parties to the effect that they would not molest
or annoy each other, or be parties to such molestation
of each other. (Laughter.) Mr. Justice Butt, having
read the document, said it was the funniest he had
ever seen. (Laughter.) Examination continued:
It was drawn up by a solicitor. (Renewed laughter.)
It was not true that he had connived at his wife's
adultery, or even treated her with cruelty. Cross-ex-
amined by Mr, Naysmith (who appeared for the re-
spondent-): He was threatened with criminal proceed-
ings for rape. It was not in consequence of that
threat he agreed to marry his wife. He denied he ever
came home intoxicated. Re-examined: It was not
true he ever committed a rape upon her.
James Buchanan Butler, father of the petitioner, said
that his son used to keep late hours, and, after re-
monstrating with him, he left home. Subsequently
Mrs. May called upon him, and stated that her
daughter was enceinte, and the marriage was arranged.
Cross-examined: Was aware that the co-respondent
was only a stableman. It was at first suggested to
claim £2OO as damages. Could not swear that at the
instance of witness the claim for damages was with-
drawn. Evidence was then given that at Mr.
Hampton's stables, at Southampton, last October, the
respondent and the co respondent were caught in an
act of adultery. William Shergold, the co-respondent,
a youth of about sixteen, was then called. He stated
that he was employed at Hampton's stables as rough-
rider. He knew the respondent as "Miss May," and
did not know that she was a married woman. Mr,
Justice Butt: He appears to know the law as to costs.
(Laughter.) Examination continued: In September
and October of last year " Miis May" was in the
habit of coming over to the stables, and on one of
those occasions he committed adultery with her.
For the defence, Annie Amelia Butler, the respondent,
deposed that she was now living with her mother
at 66, Durnford-terrace, Southampton. Her
husband treated her unkindly. He struck
her on the back with his fist a month before
she was confined, and on one occasion he
kicked her in the back because her cold feet touched
him. (Laughter.) He neglected her, and used to
drink. It was not true that she ever committed
adultery with Shergold. Had never been inside the
stables. Her husband left her about a month after
the child was born, and afterwards went to his office,
but he declined to live with her -again. Cross-
examined: She married him on the advice of her
friends to save the disgrace, but it was a very ill-
advised marriage. Shergold used to go messages for
her. Mrs. Caroline May, mother of respondent, gave
evidence as to the cruelty of the petitioner to her
daughter, who, she said, was a teacher of music, her
professional name being "Miss May." Mr. May, the
husband of the last witness, also corroborated the
cruelty. Mr. Justice Butt, in giving his decision, said
that he had no doubt that the adultery charged was
committed. He did not believe the evidence as to the
cruelty, while there was no evidence of connivance.
As to desertion, it was perfectly clear that the young
man left because he could not pay the 15s. a week
exacted from him by the respondent's mother; but
apart from that there was an agreement drawn up
in which they arranged to live apart. He granted a
decree nisi.