The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-06-04 00:00:00

On Sat6day a, discussion' too' p/del beton the court
acitii the eittlement,- but their lordthipt reseffed their
judgment.

IRRVigtir 6ri TRI2-

This was a suit instituted by the htietr'ami, th'i'dalatain
of a merchant vessel, praying for a diverce from his
wife on the ground of adultery. It was proved that
during the absence of petitioner on a voyage to and
from Australia the respondent became with child by a
p'ersort trotted Gill. There was no doubt of this fact,
but it was attempted to ho shown. that the petitioner
oiddoned bis wife's guift by cohabiting with her
en his fichn' sea in April, 85g: It appeared,
however, that lie Oa? S'eef!t,' his Ntife one night;
then finding the state she was ini a ai rrel took place
between them, when the petitioner, d fscv cliYs" after-
wards, called in'a broker and sold off his goods mid left
his wife.

The court, upon those facts, pronounced a decree for a
divorce.

vocrEßs v. 110f-ItEg AND ARMSHAW.

• ,•. .•
The petttroliet,ins this' caee,•.Tne.- Cteigh Rogers, insti-
tuted this snit for a ass.-61:k01.',9t urartiage with his
wife on the ground of hei eldniteff' alipeared that
the parties were married at Christ Cllttfuhilaktieter; in
February, 1850, the husband being then twenty:erg&
years of age, and his wife twenty-one. The petitioner
new eatties on, and has carried on for senno years, busi
ness d fliinet at Stourbridge, where he resided with
his wife up td Belit.e•lnbeti 1359, There was no issue
• f,tdnil36 nipiriage, but the petitioner and respondent
lived t0i41,4 on. tike most amicable teCtfig.. The re,
spondent being very en-reSpefident (Who
was only nineteen years of agey, ebb otFailist of
the Parish Church at Stourbridge, was eligiel to' give
her lessons in music. The above month the respondent
told the petitioner that she was going on a visit to her
aunt at Wakefield, and she left Steurbridge for that pur-
pose. In two or three days afterwards the petitioner
Went to Wakefield, where he found to his- surprise that
his Wife *as not at her aufieg. Ile immediately com-
municated with his brother on the subject; and from
inforniation he reoeived, the pefitionet; his brother, and
another person came to Londeni, on the Ilrd of actoher,.
and on going to 72; Albany--stiect, they found Mrs.
Ittigeri and the corespondent i4l a bed-room, and the i
co-respondent Was i4.his:night-"elothes:
The court decreed a dissolution of t}re' marriage.

SAVOURY V. SAVOURY.

This was a suit instituted by the wife for a divofee'
from her husband, on the ground of adultery and deser-
tion. It appeared that the parties had been married in
iCovember, 1834, and they lived together till 1840, when
the respogdett failed in trade as a licensed victualler ;
he then deserted his wit, elk} we-0 to live with a female
named Fletcher, and was living with' he! qtr. These
facts were fully established, and the court proji'oerided a
decree of divorce.

HEATH V. HEATH AND LONGLY.

This was a petition presented by the husband, praying
theeourt to grant a dissolution of the marriage on the
gtottild of his wife's adultery. It: appeared that the
pariies tiers tnattied in 1851, and had two children. In
Auglist, 1858, the iespoiiderit asked het httstiattifs per-
mission to go to Brighton to visit a teratiVe. In about
a month she returned, and after being at ho'm'e about a
fortnight she again obtained the leave of her httshand to
pay a visit to a relative in Woodford, Essex. It turned
out, however, that instead of going either to Brighton or
to Woodford, the respondent went to Hoxton, where she
lived with Loney, 6o'qeipondent.
Witnesses were called in stipfoit 61' the case. The
court decreed a divorce.

WEST V. WEST ,AND PENNYPATHER.

This was a, suit instituted by Lieutenant-Colonel
Temple West, of the Guards, praying for a divorce
from his wife, Margaretta Luechese de la Pore, on the
grounds of her adultery with the co-respondent.
It' appeared that the Vetitier`tior, Who had been a
lieutenhnt-eolonel id the Guards, was married to the
respondent, Wlio Was the datighter of Admiral de la
Pore, in 1849, and tliatt two children Nero the issue of
the marriage.
_After the niarridge they resided in
Cliesliam•place, BLilgrave-square. They then lifed at
Ryde, Isle of Wight, and ultimately they went on a
tour, and in 1859 they were staying at Malta, the
petitioner having previously sold out. ICI May, in that
year, the petitioner was obliged 0 Collie to London on
business, leaving his wife behind him, at Alaittf. Itr
August he received information, that his wife had eloped
with Capt. Pennyfather, of the 41St Regiment of Foot,
whereupon he, accompanied by his brother, Major Fred.
West; proeeerled to Eccomo d'Opola, in Piedmont, where
they' fotiid Mrs: West living with Captain Pennyfather.
The petitioner called out the co-respondent, and a duel
took place, but it did not appear that either of the com-
batants was wounded. The petitioner and his brother
then returned to London, and steps were immediately
taken to obtain a divorce. Mrs. West and Captain
Pennyfather also came to London, stopped for awhile at
Morley's Hotel, and subsequently they went to reside
at MI, lerniyn-street, where they were seen by Major
West and the chambermaid of Morley's Hotel, and
where the necessary citation was served 111/OTI them.
These facts were supported by the evidence of Major
Wyndham West, cousin to the petitioner; also by his
brother, Major West, and Ellen Hayes, the chamber-
maid at Morley's Hotel. The two former witnesses
also clenched Us the 'amicable terms upon which the
petitioner and his wife lived.

The counsel- for the respondent and eo•reepondent
took no exception to the evidence.

The court pronounced a decree dissolving the marriage.
Dr. Phillimore proposed to bring the subject of the
alimony to be allowed -to the respondent under the con-
sideration of the court on a future day.