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

Legal.

COURT 01? DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES.

(Before the JUDGE-ORDINARY, Mr. Justice WIGHTIIAN,
mod Mr. Justice BY LE& )

LLOYD r. LLOYD AND CHICHESTER.

Mr. Henry James conducted the petitioner's case.
This was • petition by Thorny, Lloyd for a dis.roln-
tion of his marriage with Annie Cowper Lloyd, on the
ground of her adultery with George Augustus Hamil-
ton Chichester. Neither the respondent nor the co-
respondent appeared. After the conclusion of the peti-
tioner's case the hearing was adjourned in order that the
attendance of Mr. Struts might be procured.
Mr. John Struti was this morning sworn and cross-
examined by the Judge-Ordinary. He said,—l am an
attorney, and I was employed by Captain Lloyd in this
suit, and in other matters. In November last, when he
was a prisoner in the Queen's Bench, I had an inter-
view with him on the subject of the suit, and I con-
ducted the suit up to • certain period. I afterwards re-
fused to continue to manage his affairs. and another
attorney, Mr. Jones, was appointed. This bill (handed
to the witness by his Lordship) was prepared by me in
order that I might have my costs taxed on the change
'of attorney. To the best of my belief, the statements it
contains are true. Early in November I learnt from
Captain Lloyd in what manner he proposed to find
money for the expenses of the suit. A sum of money
amounting to I:400 or £llOO was coming to him from
Mr. Cheese, the father of Mrs. Lloyd, and he was to be
at liberty to appropriate a portion of that sum to the
expense of the suit, and the rest to making a settlement
with some of his creditors to enable him to get out of
prison, and to his private purposes. I saw Mr. Cheese
on the subject once or twice, and I tried to arrange with
lion for the payment to Captain Lloyd of the sum I have
mentioned, but Mr. Cheese had nothing to do with the
application of the money beyond knowing that Captain
Lloyd meant to appropriate part of it to the expense of
the suit. No arrangement was made with reference to
claiming costs or damages from Mr. Chichester.

-
The Judge-Ordinary read an item from the bill of
costs :—" Long attendance at my office upon Mr. Cheese
and Mr. Isaacson, and discussing all the matters con-
nected with the divorce, the position the property would
assume in consequence, and the party to be intrusted
with the guardianship of the children, when Mr. Cheese
proposed as follows :—that you should concur in the
petition for a divorce ; that Mr. Chichester should be
the co-respondent with your wile; and that no costs or
damages should be aaked for against bins." Did Mi.
Cheese propose that?
Witness.—That wee the understanding upon which the
suit was to be instituted. Whether Mr. Cheese pro-
prosed it or not I cannot say. That was understood by
Captain Lloyd and by all parties.
The Judge•Ordinary.—What was understood ?
Wituess.—Mr. Cheese and Captain Lloyd had re-
ferred all matters connected with the suit and with the
settlements to a mutual friend, a gentleman at the bar,
Mr. Cooke, and in the course of the discussions it was
suggested that that would be the best mode of proceed.
ing. No doubt, I communicated that suggestion to
Captain Lloyd.
The Judge-Ordinary—Did he agree to it
Witness.—He put himself entirely in our hands. He
was most violent on every occasion against his wife,
and Mr. Chichester and I could scarcely get him to listen
to anything I said; but he left the matter to me to do
entirely as I thought proper. Mr. Cooke hail previously
been consulted as • family friend by Mr. Cheese and
Captain Lloyd in the negotiations as to the amount of
money to be handed over by Mr. Cheese, and as to the
settlements.

The Judge-Ordinary.—Did Captain Lloyd make any
stipulation as to receiving money before he would sign
the petition?
Witness—He swore most positively that lie would
do nothing one way or the other, either in the matter
of the suit or of the settlements, unless Mr. Cheese first
paid over the money, for he said he did not believe he
should othei wise get it at all. There was great enmity
between them. His claim to the money rose from the
marriage settlements. There were two settlements, one
of Mrs. Lloyd's property,
and another of the Irish pro-
perty of Mr. Eyre doyil, the father of Captain Lloyd.
Captain Lloyd had contingent interests under those set-
tlements; but he had made them over to his father, be-
cause he intended to take the benefit of the Insolvent
Act. He was to receive the money from Mr. Cheese on
account of these contingent interests, and lie said he
would not proceed with the divorce until he got it. He
and Mr. Cheese hail a desperate quarrel. Mr. Cheese
offered £4OO, and he thought he ought to have 1:000 or
£7OO. Mr. Cheese was anxious for &divorce, on account
of the money affected by the settlements and of the
children of whom Captain Lloyd wished to get posses-
sion. I communicated to Mr. Cheese that Captain
Lloyd refused to be a party in any way to • divorce, un-
less Mr. Cheese would agree to pay him money from
time to time for his private purposes, and also for the
expense of getting up evidence and carrying on the suit.
That oommunication was quite true. Mr. Cheese agreed
to hand over £lO to Captain Lloyd for his immediate
we. He stated that Mr. Cooke, his friend and adviser,
should receive his instructions to supply the funds
necessary for getting up the evidence. Captain Lloyd
received some inoney, and soon after signed the peti-
tion, and the rest of the money received afterwards by
Coptain Lloyd was the money promised him for the
reversionary intermits. I handed over some money to
Captain Lloyd on his signing the petition, not as an
equivalent for his signature, but as a port 1.4 his claim.
The item in the bill of costs, "cash paid to you 011 your
signing the petition, being the amount agreed by Mr.
Cheese to be paid you on your so dung," is correct.
The 1:10 I then paid cause from Mr. Cheese, and was
handed over in pursuance of an authority given by him
to me to pay it when the petition was signed. I re-
ceived a further stun, .4:50 in all, from Mr. Cheese
through Mr. Cooke. It was suggested that Mr. boom-
son should go to Paris to serve the citation, in confer-
ence with Mr. Cook, because Isaacson knew Mr. Chi-
chester, and lie was • very difficult man to find.
(Laughter.) No, doubt, Mr. Cheese had expressed a
wish that Isaacson should go, and I told Captain Lloyd
so. I supplied ISIIIiC4OII with money for the journeY,
which I received from Mrs. Cooke. I paid him L'2.5
before he started, iuul sent £25 to him when he was in
Paris. I did not receive it from Captain Lloyd, for he
had no money.
The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. H. James,
and stated that Isaacson occupied chambers in the same
house with him, but paid his own rent. He had been
abroad two or three years ago for the benefit of his
health, but Isaacson never to his knowledge made use
of his name to practise as • solicitor. Isaacson some-
times introduced business to I out of friendship, but
was never remunerated for so doing, and did not assist
hint as • clerk. The bill of costs delivered to Mr. Junes
when he became the petitioner's attorney was in Isaas-
son's handwriting, but Isaacson never received a Rix-
pence from him for that or for any other assistance. The
bill was not sent in until he knew that he was not to be
employed any longer in the matter. He refused to go
on. The amount of the bill was £216 ifs. 10d., and he
offered under the circumstances to take £l5O. The bill
had been taxed by the registrar.
Mr. James.—There are several items in the bill of
fees paid to Mr. Cooke and clerk. Did you ever pay a
sixpence of those fees?
Witness.—Read the bill before you make insulin.
tions, Mr. I forget your name. As Mr. Cooke was
paying money for the purposes of Mr. Lloyd it was not
thought necessary to pay tin] the fees at that time. I
put them down, but I did not charge them, and never
asked the registrar to allow them. I have Captain
Lloyd's receipt for the .ClO. I dare say that when I
obtained Mr. Cheese's check for it I told him that Cap-
tain Lloyd had not food to eat. I had assisted Captain
Lloyd.
Mr. H. James said that Mr. Cheese, Mr. Cooke, and
Captain Lloyd were present, and would make very dif-
ferent statements from that which their Lordships had
heard from Mr. Strut*. and Mr. Isaacson.

Mr. W. H. Cooke, a barrister, was then sworn. He
said,—l have known Mr. Cheese's family for many
years. Mr. Cheese did not approve his daughter's
marriage with Captain Lloyd, and refused to receive
him. Captain Lloyd was put into the Queen's Bench,
and when he was released he refused to receive his wife,
because he thought she bad been guilty of adultery. I
found it impoasible to bring the young people together,
and Mr. Eyre Lloyd asked me, as a mutual friend, to
make arrangements for • permanent separation. He
wished ho. Irish estates to he released Irons any liability
to Mrs. Lloyd. At the end of 18.57 Captain Lloyd was
again confined in the Queen's Bench, and in 1858 I was
instructed to prepare an application to this court for •
divorce. Last hovember I was told by Mr. Lloyd's
father that he had seen Mrs. Lloyd and Mr. Chichester.
together in Paris. Captain Lloyd was in a bad state of
health, and in great poverty in the Queen's Bench.
Mr. Cheese had up to that time believed the charge
against his daughter to be untrue, but I told him what
I bad heard, and expressed an opinion that he ought no
longer to resist a divorce, and that he ought to give
facilities for obtaining evidence by allowing his servants
to tell what they knew. He said be would act on my
advice, and not put the petitioner to the expense of an
opposition. Captain Lloyd thought he ought to have
LT/00, for his reversionary interests in Mrs. Lloyd's pro-
perty, although he had assigned them to his father three
years before. It was then that Isaacson paid his visit
to Mr. Cheese, and took him to Mr. Strutt.
Mr. Cheese then came to my chambers, and asked me
to see Mr. Strutt, as he was employed by Mr. Eyre
Lloyd to arrange all Captain Lloyd's affairs. Mr.
Cheese refused to advance a single shilling of the money
that Captain Lloyd claimed, and was very positive. I
expressed an opinion that a suit of this sort ought not
to oast above £5O, and intimated that I should write and
tell Mr. Eyre Lloyd that I thought it ought to be
prosecuted. I also said I hoped that Mrs. Lloyd would
not he insulted by having the citation served on her in
an offensive manner. Mr. Strutt then suggested that
Isaacson should serve it. Mr. Strutt mentioned to Mr.
Chem that Captain Lloyd had not a shilling in the
world, and was in great distress, and asked if lie would
give him something. Mr. Cheese refused. I then said
I really believed he was as low as possible, and I thought,
as be had been severely punished. Mr. Cheese should
give him CIO. Mr. (Theeas then consented to give a
check, but not with any condition attached to it to my
knowledge. In December Mr. Strutt informed Inc
that Isaacson could not go to Paris without money, and
I gave him £.30. I advanced the money out of may own
pocket, and Mr. Cheese repaid me when I told loin. In
January, Isaacson told me that his journey to l'aris had
cost £l5O. That rather astonished me. Anion g the
items was £.50 advanced to Mr. Chichester. I did not
believe in that advance, and he brought me an order
from Mrs. Lloyd on her father for the next quarterly
payment of her allowance. I had an interview with
Mr. Strutt on the subject of laaacson's dasiand, and in
consequence of what passed I wrote to Mr. Eyre Lloyd
to come over from Ireland and bring his solicitor. He
and Mr. Prissier accordingly came, and I then ascer-
tained that Mr. &Tuft bad no authority from Mr. Eyre
Lloyd to take any step in the matter. Mr. Cheese re-
fused to furnish money, Captain Lloyd had done, and
Eyre Lloyd was very anxious for • divorce, and I wished
to know what course they would adopt. They decided
to turn off Mr. Strati and to engage Mr. Jones.

- - -
The Judge-Ordinary asked whether the intermit of
Captain Lloyd under the marriage settlements vu of
such a character that, if the mamma was dissolved, the
contingency could never arise.
Mr. W. H. Cooke said he had not examined the set-
tlements minutely, and he could not say. I know, he
continued, that Captain Lloyd was desirous of receiving
the value of the contingent interest from Mr. Chime, in
order to get himself oat of his difficulties.

that
iti3T‘ 'hrYlreidei r‘‘llJ.lr',:rdge.d ri sr
dP sis
nwadu giving
°Mg
trhe.eveC hxi
demaelecji Court did wan
aida not!nan requiredattendance
taa
ton
examine Mr. Cheese, althoughrhtheeyydiwdoullidotatlLoiwnkheiimptot.
d.
c.var hoNery:dc:
dvoc °J':lhut.jie.dlnurdge eseb::o:isafr de. ezhinaanec
dr yiwn being
ts ee. tendered,r
wsconferringdoubtwith
at el otherl.
adultery had been committed by the respondent and the
co.respondent. But the 30th section of the statute
enacted that in case the Court should find that "the
pe titi
of h
on in prese.ntedio: ptrh
en o
oc se nted in collusion with
eitherthe
Court shall iliBlulss
the petition." This mac certainly presented seine very
cu.riousnfewatguiresve,inandaccotheunt;ooufrthi,,feolitinlin
und to call on
i .
transac-
tion. He said that lie was selected by Lloyd to serve
the citation because he was the intimate friend of
Chichester, and that when lie went to Paris for that
purpose and to get up evidence lie communicated
familarily and intimately with Chichester and Mrs
Lloyd during his stay, dining with them every day
either at a restaurant or at their lodgings, and being on
such terms of intimacy that he once had the opportunity
of seeing them in bed together. This was not all, for
he said he advanced On on Sirs. Lloyd's order to
Chichester, of which Chichester gave him £25 for his
trouble in going to Paris. fle could riot deny that he
had advanced that money to Chichester for the purpose
of enabling him to complete the chain of evidence.
That evidence remaining unanswered, the case came
within the rule which the House of Lonls applied to
cases where the adultress and the adultuerer were
actively engaged in procuring evidence to support the
bill of divorce. Then it was affirmed by Mr. Strutt,
and not denied by Mr. Cooke, that he communicated to
Lloyd the result of a conversation with Cheese, in which
Cheese expressed himself anxious that the petition
should go on, when Lloyd protested that lie would take
no step in the matter until lie got the money for his
residuary interest, because lie could not trust Cheese.
Then did he ordid he notbargain for klofor his immediate
use before lie signed the petition' No one could doubt
the fact. There was also a conversation between Cooke
and Cheese, in %Odd. Cook said in effect, "Really, now
you ought to let them have the evidence which you
know is in existence to summrt their petition." With-
out pursuing the ininute details of the can further, he
would refer to page 582 of Mr. Macqueen's valuable
book, which contained a report of Chisolin's case,
decided by the House of Lords in 1799. The Court,
adopting the words used by their Lordships in rejecting
that bill, though "the evidence of collusion in tide case
too gross and palpable for any Court to overlook it,"
and they therefore felt bound to dissinisii th• petition.