The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-02-08 00:00:00

Lcgal.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE, J. 31.
(Before the Je Dut-OK DI N ALIN. )
hTOATI: Y. 1411) TE.

Mr. Sergeant Parry and Dr. Swahey appeared for the
',mangier, and Mr. M. Denney fur the respondent.
The petitioner, Mrs. Sarah Selina Anti Stuatedorayed
for a judicial separation on the grounds of cruelty and
desertion. Her maiden name was Bayne, and she was
the daughter of a respectable usershant at Bristol, who
shed when she was a child. She lived after her father's
death with her mother and her brother, WIIO went to
Australia shortly before her marriage. She made the •
acquaintance of the respondent, Will lain Stuate, during
a railway journey f Westaon.super•llare to Bristol,
in 1816. Ile followed her home, and after a few inter-
views 1111•11: her an offer. He was describes' by Mr.
Sergeant Parry an a person possessed of considerable
landed property in the west of England, and a le.rrister,
but illiterate and so:centric. She at first refuge,' to
marry him, but when his offer was renewed in 1852 she
aeowideol it. They were married at Itanisgate on the
2711 i of November, 100t52, and lived in lodgings at a place
called Southwool, in the neighbourhooal. The peti•
Cooler *tooted that her lousbaliol'a ill•treatinent tom•
inenc..l during the 1 oy•oosin, and that as she Was
taking a walk with him to Pegwellobay he used very
violent language to her, and threatened to throw ber
over the cliff. On the same night lie struck her, and
blackened her eye. lie al.. used threats to her. In
the Course if a few weeks lie went into new lodgings,
hut she refused to live with hint there, as she fousid out
that it was not a proper residence fur a respectable
woman. Three weeks afterwaids lie went to Ihith to
hunt, promising her to fetch her in • month. She
asked Moo to leave her mune money, but he said he lied
11011 c, and advised her to go to the union, lie sent her
no money. but several letteno, some of which were un-
paid. She soul the furniture for about A.'2. and re-
iiscinesi at Soutliwumal until April, 18.13. She then
came to London and conaulted an attorney, lie wrote
to Mr. Stoote, who CASISU to isee her, but *he declined the
interview. A g the letters which lie wrote during
the separation were the following :
" Sarali,—The sooner you wines down the better, as
the servant will have no more trouble to do for two
than one. I hive you still, and hope you are well, and
have aacrifictsl a lady of property for you."
Sarah,—The sooner you come down the better. I
have made a packet cocoa last use nearly a month with-
out milk and sugar."
In another letter lie regretted that there appeared to be
no probability that she would have a child. She after-
wards received post-odice orders to tlw at 00000 int of a few
shillings, hut the person with wl ..lie lived was
obliged to bring an act against Mr. Swabs to recover
the expense of her inaintesience. In July, 18.13, she
went to Bath, awl found tier birdman.' living at one of
hill Own houses, No. 2, Ilelviilere-road, Itatli, with a
servant named Mary Morris. She jooill .1 him there, and
lac recommenced his former conduct. Ile frequently
struck tier, and on one ocosasiun wised her by the hair,
turned her ,nit of the house, lrusser, and threw her
clothes after her. She returned to him and Was again
ill-useol, Morris being in the house all the t. o,
and
being treated by Mr. Senate with great kiiiilneAs. She
went to London to fetch collie of her clothes which she
haul left with her landlady, anol on her retain' he refused
1.. receive her, threatening to lo:ow her brains out if die
tried to get into the house. She contrived to effect an
I entrance during iiiui alwence, but on hia return sail Aloe
I alumuld hot atop, seized her round the waist, and pushed
her into the court. The next day she went before the
magistrates, who bound I over to keep the peace.
The magistrates advised her to return to his house. and
dill s°, but Mr. Steak had every article of furniture
I removed, and even mew food which alie was eating was
' turned off her plate. She inorn)Weti a.. • furniture of
I the neighbours, and retainmsl ismoession of the house
until, by taking the sashes smut anol by other 111CMIS, he
rendered it umiiiiihimbital,le. Mrs. Stoate, iii cross-exalt&
nation, denied several imputation* which were sug-
gested as to improprieties of conduct after her marriage,
I awl tier &colonist of varions acts oof cruelty Was corrubo-
rated by NOM: 11C11,01111 who load witnessed them.
The respondent contradicted Isis wife's evidence as to
the violent language and cruelty of which lie was ow-
cuse4. lie represented that at his first interview with
the petitioner he gave her Is. to fetch HOMO wine, most
of which she drank ; that lie kept up a correspondence
with her, and islet her in the Lowther•arcaole by appoint•
moot when lie was in lanioloo, and that she cohabited
with him before they were married. Ile also stated that
she had tohl him th.ot she had a fortune of 1:10,0M. mid
I after they hail cohabited lor mime months pursuuded him
to marry lour. lie planted that after the marriage
sloe encouraged men to drink RIOI smoke in lois roonis,
NMI refused to goo with him to Bath. After she joined
him at Bath she hoisted on going to Bristol and London
with t his consent, and absented hers, If fur weeks
together. lie therefore refused IO receive her when *he
returned. his accused her of breaking open Ilia boxes,
selling a housefuli of furniture, and other missonduet.
A Mrs. rtarjenhani, to whoin the petitioner had gone
after leaving her husband at liath, was also esainined,
and said that Mrs. Stooge WAS accompanied when she
cause to her house by Mr. Shackles, " a gentleman she
hail known in her youth." Ou croweesaissination she
aosiol that this gentleman was a relative, and un being
pressed admitted that lie Was her father.
Sir I'. Cress& ell summed up, and
The jury, without hesitation, found a verdict for the
petitioner on all the issues.

COURT FUR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES, Fro. 2.

(Ik/ore Mr. Itiatire W.I.:IITM VA, .llr. Baron SIAKTtx,
mod the JCIN:K•OIWINAUT.)
A 10117.14111 V. AMMITAMK AND MACDoNAI.D.

Mr. Wordsworth, Q.C., and Mr. Phallus for the pe-
titioner; 1/r. Ibmne, Q.C., for the co-respondent. The
respondent did not appear.
The petitioner prayed for a dissolution of marriage on
the ground of his wife'a adultery. As he had obtained
the permission of the court to prove his case by affidavit
Mr. Wordsworth stated the facts, lied the material parts
of the affidavit were then read hy Mr. Pulling. It RIP
peered that the petitioner was forniely a solicitor at
Bombay, and that in 1845 he went to reside in Scot-
land, at the lettlee of Mrs. Macdonald. the mother of the
respondent. He took • great interest in Miss Macdonald
sent her lobe educated at a school in Edinburgh, 1111,1 ill
October, 1647, married her. They did not live happily
together, and in 1819 a .separation took place. the lady
going hack to her iouthei's house. In October, 1850,
she joined her hnsdend at Birmingham, but remained
with 1 • only • few day.. Instead of returning to her
mother's house die proceeded to London, whete she was
lost sight of until 1856. In that year Mr. Armitage del-
covered that she hail been living in Psuihico and at titan-
hope-street. Mayfair, and that she had been carrying on
an adulterous interemirse with the co-respondent, Col.
James Macdonald, the .\ide-de-Canip to HIS Royal
Highness the 1/uke of Cambridge. In Julie, 1858, She
had &child, of which t'olonel Macdonald wits registered
,as the father. It is unnecessary to repeat the details of
the evidence by which the adultery VMS proved, as they
have already been fully reported, aud the facts of the
case are not diaputed.
11r. Benne, Q.C., submitted, that as there was no evi-
dence that Col. Macdonald was aware Unit the respon-
dent was • inarried woman when he first became se-
quainteil with her, and as Colonel Macdonald had already
paid £lOll damages and the costs of an action for cries.
ens, in the Common Pleas, lie ought not to be called
upon to pay the coat of the present proceedings.
Mr. Justice Wightnian Wan of opell.,e, without laying
down any definite rule applicable to all cases, that the
op-respondent in this case ought nut to be condemned in
costs
I •
, Mr. Baron Martin wondered that the petitioner had
asked for costs.
Mir C. Creswell said, lie should infer from the evidence
that when the liumband saw his wife at the theatre, before
the ammo:lwo:sent of her intercourse with Col. Mac•
I donald, be could have no doubt from her demeanour that
!stir was there for ins rat purposes. lie should else
I inlet that she was peeving by her maiden name instead
of that of her husband when Colonel Macdonald made
her acquaintance.
The marriage was accordingly dissolved, but without
coats.