The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-02-08 00:00:00

idowly ad- January
.
• by
hole.

....owed elk ebsti-cl-e- sal-Men-4
to stop the 510.,
vetoing train, which stood still with a truck partly hanging
Over Otte blink of the river. .
As sooti es they had recovered from the shock occasioned
by the sudden stoppage of the train, the guards and drovers.
who Mere in the rear, ran up to the broken bridge to ascer-
tain the fate of the driver and stoker At first they could
see adthing of them, but as itaylight came on they were able
to distinguish the form of the driver, appareatly standing
upright in the water, with his head so near the top that the
current left portions of his face occasionally visible above
the surface 011 further investigation it appeared that in
falling through the gap in the bridge the engine had rolled
over on its side, crushing the stoker into the bed of the
river; whilst the tender, falling upon the engine, had flied
the driver in the peculiar position described, just as he
was in the act of jumping off.
The four men left unhurt were, of course, helpless in the
face it swill a disaster, and, whilst the passenger guard re-
malued lii charge of the malls, the other guard volunteered
to rim back to bloat-lane Junction to telegraph to tisivestry
for assistance. This he did, but it woe ten o'cb,ek before an
engine arrived on the scene of the accident. and the two
poor fellows in the river being long past all human aid, the
attention of the officials was directed towards the fore ant-
lug of the mails. A conveyance being obtaitied, the nage
were sent route' by the highway to Pontdolgoch station ;
hut here another calamity made itself known The break-
down of the bridge at I 'arrows having suviested to the
officials o the railway the possibility of other of the bridges
being insecure, the eontdolgoch bridge, which, unlike those
at Caersws and Scald, is constructed of iron girders, was
examined, and it was discovered that its massive stone foun-
dations had already yielded to the force of the water. The
mails were accordingly carried further down the line, where
they were met by • special engine, and forwarded to their
destination. To complete the ninifortunea of the day it
shortly afterwarda transpired that the first of the three
bridges, &Mel, was also gradually being swept away, anti
It became necessary to stop at Seafel all trains proceeding
south, and at eontlolgo di all trains proceeding north,
thus isolating that portion of the lute where the accident
had occurred, and greatly adding to the dithculty of ratable
the inigine, tender, anti tricks from the bed of the river.
The accident, resulting as it has done in the shocking death
of the poor men on the engine, is lamentable enough, but
from the state of the bridges it is clear that one or other of
them must have given way on the passage of a train at some
time in the course of Saturday, anti if it had been an ordi-
nary passenger train, on this the market-day of the district,
a less of life would have occurred which it is painful even to
contemplate.

Itv.,:er '

the plaintiff agreed to decent the terms proposed
to her by Colonel Dudley Canto, and she accordingly went
over to Paris, leaving her furniture, plate, china, and other
propnny in the house at Twickenham, none of which has
she since been able to recover In 1552, while living in
Vincent-street, proceedings were taken by the Count
trAlteyrac in the 'Pramual of First Instance d the Seine,
and a judgment of separation from h s wife was granted.
Mr Coleridge tendered a copy of the judgment with the
seal of the French court.
. . .

Mr. Hawkins objected to its reception.
The Lord Chief Justice Had you better nail it, Mr.
Coleridge ?—Mr. Coleridge I tender it.
The Lord Chief Justice : If necessary I will adjourn the
case for proof—Mr. Hawkins I object to Its reception.
The Lord Chief Justice Are you really going to take such
an objection, Mr. Hawkins 7—Mr. Hawkins: I must. It is
not proved to he properly sealed.
. . .

'fl,o Lord Chio(Jostko I Will certainly not allow justice
to be defeated on such a point. If necessary 1 will adjourn
the case for proof.
Mr. Phinotch said If the document purported to be sealed
with the seal.4o! it foreign court it was sufficient
. .

The Lord Chief Justrca.: It ia scaled. %COl—that Oct to
—Mr liawkiiiic Beaitlet that the proceedings OIL which it
is wiici to hefouled are not not (nh

The Lord Chief Justice I must again put it to you, Mr.
Hawkins, representing, as you do, a nobleman holding a
public position, if you intetri to persist in your objection to
the reception of this evidence. Ido not remember to have
heard an objection so utterly and entirely unworthy of being
made as this. .Slight applause..—Mr. Hawkins: I hope
your lordship does not think I have taken the objection my-
self. The Lord Chief Justice Quite so.—Mr. Hawkins :
My instructions are to conduct the case with the greatest
strictness. The Lord Chief Justice I am not casting a
shadow of Maine in you personally, Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Hawkins said he wished a discretion had been vested
in hire, because it so he would exercise it.

Mr. otniidge -s-aid he. would C:Li—Weis—ihe reception of the
judgment just then.
The plaintiff, in croaaesamination by Mr. Hawkins, said:
I was married in 1636. My daughter was born on 20th
February, 1848, when I was living in Paris. I first became
acquainted with the defenthuit in January, 2047; my daugh-
ter was not two years old when my acquaintance Commenced
with the defendant.

Mr. Hawkins: Do you mean to say she is his daughter?
Plaintiff : If Lord Willoughby were here I would ask hint
I say yes. The child was not baptised until Lord Willoughby
consented to her being brought up a Catholic, she was
baptised at Isleworth when she was 11 years old. She was
not baptised as "father unknown." I think my husband
was travelling In America when I first became acquainted
with Lord Willoughby. My husband hail been away from
me two years. I left my husband's family, with whom I had
been residing, in February, 1047, to reside In Paris, at my
husband's request. I brought £1,6110 with me to London,
which was spent on the house, Ate , and I paid 4,u00 besides
to Parfit for the defendant's tailor'a bill, and between £6,000
and £7,000, the remainder of my property, was settled upon
our daughter. My daughter is now married. Half of the
plate was purchased by the defendant and presented to
me. In his illness I watched him day and night. It was
feared the defendant would go mad, and then it was
he gave coo the letter to his father for a provision
In cage of his decease. 51, mey had to be raised on
mortgage with which to purchase Caen.lodge. I never
said to Williamson that I wished to have the property
in Caen-lodge made over to rile. I never mentioned it
to him, and asked him to use his influence with the defend-
ant. I never said to him that on the defendant's death
should receive no favour or affection from his family.
could not have said so because I always received kindness
from all the family. Defendant saw air in my carriage when
I left Caen-lodge to fetch my daughter, ani we parted on
the most affectionate terms. I was suffering from bronchitis,
and Lord Willoughby wfahed me to go to Paris. Williamson
inserted the advertisements that I was flat to be trusted in
the French papers, at the defendant's request. I was de-
sirous of separating, because I felt that I had not been
treated as a wife and a lady ought to have been, in cense.
quence of his familiarity with Lucy Wood, my lady'amaid.
I did not tell Williamson that I did not care about the
defendant, and that all I wanted was the niaintenance. I
was too fond of the defendant to say that. I mentioned no
sum that I should require on separation with which to pay
my debts. I said I thought lie ought to pay every one, as I
had hail the management of the house as his wife. I never
said I was indebted 1:2,000. I have nearly paid every one I
owe money to in Paris, between 1',500 and £6OO. My per-
sonal debts in England and Perla cannot be snore than
J:1,000.
. . .

Ilefore the conclusion of the cross-examination an attempt
was made to compromise the scam upon the terms pro-
posed by Colonel Carlton, but Mr. Coleridge refused to ac-
cept anything less than Lord Willoughby d'Eresby's signa-
ture to such a compromise; for, as he said, he knew his
Lordship had given Ms attorney written instructions to
allow no terms to be entered into.

the Lord Chief Justice remarked that this was a matter
which he thought ought to be arranged at the earliest
possible moment, or put into the hands of some men of
honour who should have full power to determine all disputes
between the parties. Ile considered it a case of great public
scandal, and when one considered the relationship betwean
the plaintiff and defendant, the action assumed an unplea•
sant and unworthy aspect. It ought to he settled out of
court, fm there seemed to be no complaint by the defendant
of the plaintiff's misconduct, and after living together for
15 years, a mall, with no grounds for such complaint, had no
right to turn a woman adrift upon the streets.
It was then arranged to receive the evidence concerning
the French law ill case it might be required, and afterwards
to adjourn bra few days, in order that Lord Willoughby, who
was absent from London, might confirm the terms proposed
by his comiseL
M. Ernest Le Beau was examined, through an interpreter,
by Mr. Coleridge. He said he was formerly mayor of Calais
and member of the Council General of the department of
Calais. lie had been thirty-seven years an advocate, and
was a member of the Council of Advocates. He produced
and read Article 1,449 of the Coda Civil of France, which is
as follows

" La./mule Opal*, soil de corps et de Wens, soil de Wens
settlement, en reprend in fibre administration. Elle pent
disposer de son Inobilier of l'aliJner. Rile no pent alitner
immeubles sans It consentement di. mari, au sans
autorisee en Justice it son Wu,"
The witness further said that by the law of Prance a woman
separated from her husband can, with regard to personal
property, take proceedings without any authority from her
husband or the law. She is, in fact, a single woman. The
copy of the judgment of separation produced was sufficient
by the law of France to prove the legal Reparation.
M. Auguste Petit and the Chevalier de Rosas, advocates of
the French liar, concurred In the opinions expressed by 31.
Le Beau.
The court was then adjourned.

On Monday morning the case was again brought
before the court, when Mr. Coleridge, (after a cun-
t erence with Mr. Hawkins), said : There is one matter
in connection with the settlement of this case which
must have the sanction of your lordship. (The terms
agreed to between the parties were then handed up.)

The Lord Chief Justice (having read the document) : You
both wish it P—Mr. Hawkins: Yes, 1 d!sire

The Lord Chief Justice: I would rather you named some
one yomself, but if you prefer it I will name a gentleman.
Mr. Coleridge We both prefer that your lordship should
name the party.
Mr. llawkins: of course it is impossible for your lordship
to doe o at this nmment.
The Lord ChiefJustiec :.No, it is necessary before I do that
I should communicate with the party.
Mr. Hawkins : Before thin ease domes, I wiali to say a word
on behalf of Lord Willoughby D'Eresby. My friend's case
has been opened to the jury and the plaintiff has been
examined. Now I need hardly say that ford Willoughby
would not have defended this case if he had not taken a
different view of it to that which has been presented by the
plaintiff. Ilia lordship has clever been new Ming to make an
allowance to the Countess sufficient for her future main-
tenance, flit the terms have been so large which the Counteas
and her friends asked, that it was impossible for the noble
defendant to accede to them. The case, however, is now
terminated, Lord Willoughby having done that which from
the first, it appeared to me, he should have done—viz., to
refer it to some gentleman of honour to say what as a
matter of honour and regardless of law should he done
between the parties. Lord Willoughby's case has not been
presented to the jury. I have abstained from saying one
syllable disrespectful of the lady. I have only endeavoured
I to conduct the cue in accordance with n y instructions.
, The Lord Chief Justice The terniinatoa is satisfactory ;
I only wish it had been done sooner.

l'he parties then withdrew, having first signed the
terms of reference.

The Times has the following leader on the ease :
If one wanted an extreme example of human perversity,
It would be supplied by a trial which has just been held in
the Court of Queen's Bench—"Comtesse D'Alteyra,c v. Lord
Willoughby de Eresby." It is characteristic of some per-
sons to be insensible to the scandalous nature of their con-
duct, to he unable to perceive that there ace certain
exposures which are more fatal than a whole life of folly and
excess. Such people are uncontrollable until it is tmo late;
they only draw back and pay a tribute to decency after thee
have irretrievably damaged themselves. Lord Willoughby
de Eresby, the defendant in this action. belongs to one of
the most illustrious families of the English nobility. His
title is among the oldest in the peerage; It is one of those
ancient baronies by writ of summons which the possessors
often prefer to higher but newer dignities. He is one of the
two hereditary Great Chamberlains of England. Born tot
large fortune, the only sou of estimable and indulgent
parents, he hashed every advantage that fortune can bestow.
Yet in nmture age we find him dragging a noble name in the
dirt, and through the medium of a court of law publishing
to the world not only the errors of his life, but that moral
obliquity and insensibility to shame which lead a man to do
the meanest actions.
In the year 1047 the defendant, thee the Hon. Alberic
Drummousi Willoughby, formed an intimacy with a French
lady, the Conotesse d'Alteyrac, and she lived with him as
his wife in Paris or in England for no less than seventeen
years—that is until December, 1864. In February, 1848, a
daughter was born, who was acknowledged by Mr. Wil-
loughby, said was always called Miss Willoughby up to the
time of her marriage. In December. 1864, the Countess,
who had always been called Mrs. Willoughby, went
to Paris to see her slaughter, who was at school, and
sortie time after the late Lord Willoughby, the de-
fendant's father, died. From pecquiary motives the
new Lord desired to separate from its companion
By means of an intermediary he offered her £1,500
or £2,000 a year. Accruing to her counsel, at the trial, she
left Caen Dodge, the defendant's residence, mid went to Paris
on the understafiding that these terms were to be carried
out. But she has since received only £lOO, and the de-
fendant, moreover, took possession of and mold the furniture
soil other effects, which, as she alleges, belonged to her.
Thus Lord Willoughby, after living with this lady for up-
wards of seventeen years, forsakes his companion, evades the
payment of an annuity whiM had been promised to her,
and even takes possession of the furniture and effects which
perhaps legally, but at any rate in honour , and equity, be-
longed to her.
This, however, is not tilt The lady, left without means, !
brings an action to recover the value of the property to !
which she thought henelf entitled. Most men, if they had
done a shabby thing under the impulse of weariness or dis-
like, would take care to remedy it before the matter became
known to the world. If their own good feeling or their own
prudence were insufficient to prompt them rightly. they
would listen ti the advice of friends, who would tell them
that they were about to wash their dirty linen very publicly
indeed. A peer of the realm must choose his associates and
advisers very badly il he has no one to dissuade him from
coming into court to resist a claim from a deserted woman,
who had at airy rate been his partner during the whole of
Ins early manhood, and who was the mother of his child.
Lord Willoughby not only sloes this, but he gives instructions
to take every advantage. Even the reception of the pods-
moot of the French Court which separated the Countess
from her hushaud W. objected to by Sir. Haw kins
on the ground that there was no proof of the seal of the
Court, nor of the record or pnoceedhogs on which the judg-
ment was granted. This was too much for the Chief Justice,
who said he bad never heard such unworthy objeotions, and
reminded the learned counsel that he represented a public
character. son this Mr. Hawkins assured his lordship that
he was entirely without discretuin in the matter, anti that
he was bound by his instructions to admit nothing. In fact,
the defendaht hail pleaded that the Countess, being •
married woman, bail no right to sue is her own name. To
live to adultery with a married woman, Mill then publicly to
allege her marriage as a bar to her claim, surpaa.es aboost
anything that can be conceived of meatiness. It was not I
mail the Chief Justice Interposed with an emphasis and ylvip ,
city seldom witnessed in a court of justice that the scandalous
scene came to a clove. The defendant's counsel had been
even forced to cresoexarnine the plaintiff as to the
paternity of the daughter who during her whole
life had been recognises% by the defendant us his °en child.
A compromise was proposed by Mx Hawkins, but it could
not be accepted! without Li rd Willoughloy's si_nature, for
Me Coleridge said lie knew " his lordship had given Itis
attorney written instructions to allow no terms to be entered
into" But the Chief Justice declared that the case ought to
be settled out of court, for there seemed to be no com-
plaint by the defendant of the plaintiff's misconduct, and
after IP, tog together for fifteen years (they had come to
England together in 1849) "a man with no mounds for such
complaint, had no right to turn a woman adrift upon the
streets" So the parties agreed to adjourn the trial, that the
defend aid, who was in the country, might be communicated
with. silt Stonday Mr. Hawkins announced Lord Vi illoughby's
consent to a compromise, on the basis that the whole matter
should be referred to a man of honour to be named by the
Judge, this gentleman being at liberty to tlx not only the
terms on which the claims in this action were to be satisfied,
but also the terms upon which the separation of the parties

_
was to continue, amt the allowance which ought to be made
by the defendant.
Well might the Chief Justice regret that this satisfactory
termination had not been arrived at earlier Lord Wil-
loughby has gained nothing pecuniarily by his sharp practice
and the technical objectiot, which the ingenuity of his law.
yem devised lie will have, in the end, to give a decent
support to his former winpanion, and he bad better have
done it at once. Ou the other hand, it will be a long time
before those who have read this ugly case will forget it,
and li, these days such cases are read by millions_ 1.0r.1
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Great Chaniherlain, had a
character and dignity to lose, at least among those who did
not know him. They, the great body of the public, are now
aware to what so highly placed a person can descend. Ills
conduct not only affixes a stigma on himself, but, however
unjustly, reflects discredit on the office he bears and the
order to which he belongs.