The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-06-05 00:00:00

THE ARISTOCRATIC IRISH DIVORCE

CASE.

On Monday in the House of Izyr, ds (present, the
Lord Chancellor, and Lords Blackburn, Watson,
Fitzgerald, and Ashbourne) Brooke's Divorce suit
was heard. This was a bill to dissolve the marriage
of Gerald Richard Brooke, of Kellystown House,
Clonsilla, in the county of Dublin, with the Hon.
Kathleen Brooke, his wife, and to enable him to
marry again, and for other purposes. Mr. McLaugh-
lin, Q.C., and Mr. Alexander Bell (both of the Irish
bar) appeared for the petitioner; and Mr. Meysey
Thompson for the wife. From the opening statemeo
of counsel it appeared that the marriage of the partiese
was solemnised according to the rites and ceremonies.
of the Church of Ireland, on April 10, 1875, at the
parish church of Donnybrook, in the county of Dublin,
and that they lived and cohabited together at Kellys-
town until Oct. 7, 1885. There were four children born
of the marriage, of whom three survived. They lived
happily until a comparatively short time ago, but, from
delicate health or other causes, Mrs. Brooke evinced
a temper incompatible with the comfort of married
life. Mr. Seymour Bushe, of Ely-place, Dublin, a
barrister-at-law, was a frequent visitor at Mr. Brooke's
house, but some time in 1885 he ceased his visits.
Afterwards some little quarrel arose between Mr.
and Mrs. Brooke, and she declared her intention of
going to Dublin to see her mother. Mr. Brooke en-
deavoured to dissuade her, but ultimately he agreed
to her doing so. On Oct. 2, 1885, she went in an
open carriage to Dublin, but before she reached her
destination she dismissed her groom, saying she felt
cold and that she would take a cab for the remainder
of the journey. Instead, however, of going to her
mother's she went direct to the residence of Mr.
Bushe, where she remained for the night. Next
morning she, accompanied by Mr. Bathe, took
train for Belfast, and thence went by steamer
to Ardrossan, and there was evidence of acts of adul-
tery committed on board the vessel. In Glasgow
they stayed at an hotel for two or three days, and
subsequently they went to a house at Chelsea, where
they occupied one bed and sitting room, living as man
and wife. A remarkable and melancholy incident
connected with the elopement was that on the morn-
ing of Mrs. Brooke's departure from Dublin Mr.
Bushe was seen to post a letter there, and on the
same day Mr. Brook A received an envelope addressed
in his wife's handwriting containing her wedding-
ring. On Oct. 20, 1885, Mr. Brooke commenced in
Ireland an action for criminal conversation, and ob-
tained an interlocutory judgment against Mr. Busho
for default in not entering a statement of defence,
and on Jan. 15, 1886, the damages were assessed by'
the verdict of the jury at £lOOO. On Jan. 20,1880,
final judgment for the damages and costs was given,
and the money had since been paid. Mr. Brooke had also
instituted a suit in Ireland against his wife for divorce
from bed and board, and in Jan. last he obtained
judgment in his favour. He now sought by this bill
a divorce "a vinculo matrimonii." Mrs. James, the
landlady of the house in Chelsea, gave evi-
dence as to the circumstances under which Mrs.
Brooke and Mr. Bushe had resided there. The
groom who drove Mrs. Brooke to Dublin was also
called to depose to the facts within his knowledge.
Mr. Brooke, the petitioner, having also been examined,
the envelope containing the wedding-ring was pro-
duced. SOMEI other evidence having been given, Mr.
Thompson, who was instructed to watch the case on
the part of the respondent, said he would not ask for
any further proofs to be given, but at a later stage of
the inquiry he would ask, in the event of the bill
passing, that the mother should have access to the
children of the marriage. Mr, M‘Laughlin said he
wished to give notice that this application would be
most strenuously opposed by his client. The Lord
Chancellor observed that this billproposed to dissolve
the marriage between Mr. Gerald Richard Brooke
and the Hon. Kathleen Brooke. The preamble
alleged acts of adultery by Mrs. Brooke with Mr.
Seymour Bushe, and evidence had been offered in
lodshtnhc acts, which left no doubt in their
committed. The pream6li3'lts'7 alleged had been
proved, and accordingly he movad"tratiere. been
read a second time. The bill wan then read a second
time.