The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-04 00:00:00

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAUSE& -MA: 3.

(Before the Judge Ordinary Mr. Justin, wait., aad Mr.
Justice ailL)

OATH T. GAM A/CD WOODWARD.-DITIKTITTIII Aram
The petitioner, • stuff manufacturer at linerlford, married
the respondent in 1842. They wahabited till 1858, and
during that interval she bore him six chador, of whom four
were still living, the eldest being a boy of 15, and the
• daughter of about two years of age. In 1860
youngest
Oath became addicted to drinking ; and her intemper-
' ante grew upon her to such • degree that in March, 1868,
her husband Masted on a separation. A deed was accord-
' ingly executed, under which he agreed to allow her 601.
• year, in addition to property of nearly the same amount
which she possessed in her own right. Atter the separation
she took her yomgait child with her sad went to Ilikipton,
where she took lodgings in the home ef • His Hopper.
For • short time her taster eta with Mr, but she went
sway, and then • young muse named Ana &trim, who
had bee in her service at came to take care of the
child. In Miss Hepper's home there had beenliving for
several years • young man named Woodward, an impeder
of voidance on the Midland Railway ; and it was
alleged on behalf of the petition that an intimacy
soon spring up between him and the respondent.
This acquaintance epee* ripened into a very close inti-
; and ablest it excited the aspires of Mrs.
the of Miss Hopper, who was bed-ridden,
unable to Look after her establishment herself. Mrs.
Whited& noticed that Woodward been to draw his blind
down, which he bad never before been in the habit of
doing. Mrs. Whitecek removed the blind sad then she
observed that Woodward's curtains were pis nned together.
the removed the curtains; sod then the shuitees were
put to. One night in May, 1868, Mrs. Whiteoak slipped
out into the street, and slightly pelting the shutter open
(the rem was on the pound floor) she detected the re-
marks& In the het. She afterwards charged Mrs. Oa&
with her delinquencylathe presence of Bwinn ; and the
repondsnt, bureing team, mid it was • shame to leek
through the shutters. Mrs. Whiteoak then told Mies
Hopper, who directed her to send the respoodest away.
Woodward was afterwards taxed with the offence ; and the
memo he made me that it wee all Mrs. Oath's feat.
These facts having hese deemed to in evidence, Mr.
Overend, Q.C. (with whom was Dr. Deem, Q. C., and Dr.
ilershey), eastesdedi that his onset was entitled to a divorce.
Thee were other &sew in the petition, namely, of
committed is Manshoster, and damages were de.
maadd in the ems of 5001. ; but no Mame was tendered
in support stutter charges, sad the claim for
damages was
Mr. }Lewisham, SO., Dr. apinks, and Mr. Wheeler a
=for the respesdent ; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mp. r.
for the caresposilent.
The defence was • denial of the offence, and that the
evidence had been competed for the sake of obki •
&moieties of the sestriacp. It that Cowards
end el 1858 the p 'sWaser,moo ecerespendiew with his
wife cm apparel* the facet hles&y emu engaged •Sr
teelive seated Duffy to mesh liar. Duffy Wag male to
discover anything, h
eeltieser melt to him directing
him to copy • Weer a mod it to the reepeothed He was
then to go to the postedioe sad see if there wee an answer,
sad if so, to send it him unopened. This escheare was in
the petitioner', own handwriting, sad coataining an in.
famous proposition,, to which she wee remised to reply in
• note directed to 'Henry Rogers, postellse, Mae.
&ester." There being no answer two or three other ex-
tremely profligate letters were written under this name, and
the policeman was requested to put as "r" into Mn. Oath's
same—making it Oarth—" as • &Ind."
The Judge Ordinary, in summing up, strongly amenied
the husband's conduct. He did not suppose that must
could reed the letters referred to without
the greatest disgust it the low, vulgar, and
noble style in which they were written, but
that was not what the jury had to ocusider.
The only question with which they bed to do was whether
such • man would suborn perjured witnesses to tome
forward and prove his am. The pea/goner had odor.
tunstely followed the example which had been lately set
of employing persona calling themselves " dateetives," is
order to detect, or pretend to detect, the guilt &hie We.
There was some what sort of person the men was
is whose hands he had placed himself ; for it appeared
that he had suggested to the petitioner the pees iniquity
" putting somebody upon" the respoMent ; in other
words, of introducing some one to her for the purpose of
debauching her. How the letters had come into the heads
of the respondent, why Duffy had given them sp, or for
what consideration, there had been no explanation ; bat
the petitioner in his first letter to Duffy, the detective
mid, ' With respect to putting somebody on to her, I
tell you I will nut sanction any such thing ; and I dem-
prove of it so strongly that I beg you will not attemt it."
Rot what must they not think of this man Duffy ? It only
showed into what hands persons might fall who employed
such people. The expedient to which the petitioner had
resorted of writing these filthy letters was the strongest
proof of his being • low-rnindai vulgar man, who had deceived
U./1801f into believing that he peened • great deal of in.
genuity and cunning ; but it was a cunning of the lowest
and moot degraded description. Still his object seemed to
be merely to entrap his wife, of whose guilt he appeared to
have been convinced, into some admission which
be might use against her ; and he had ex-
pressly renounced the idea of leading her into
mischief. He (the learned judge) hoped that the disgrace
which attached to the co-respondent would be • warning to
others not to follow his example.
After the jury had consulted for • few moments,
The Foreman asked if it was
,neoemary that they should
come to • unanieme conclusioo .

Air C. Cleavell—Certainly ; and I may here publicly
state that I trust the day is far off when we shall be content
with less.

d.
-'l7-heTui7 (a special one) then found the Lune for the hus-
ban

The Court said that in the present state of the law the
oourt were bound to decree a dissolution of the marriage ;
but he had seen a bill which had already pawed through one
house of parliament under which there might perhaps have
been another course of proceeding. It would not, how-
ever, be right to condemn the co-respondent in the costa.
The petitioner had sent his wife out of his house be ease,
as it appoered, she had become an intolerable nuisance ;
but he had left her to follow her own devices, and she ap-
tlTSito have seduced the tro-respondent, who was much
nior, into this scrape.
Dissolution of the marriage, but without costs.
CIALLWILL V. CALLIVILL AND lENNIDT.-11.11AVT DAVACIZA.
The petitioner, Mr. William Caldwell, was a gentleman of
property in Kildare. He married the respondent on the
16th of March, 1850, and had had three daughters bruphra
1858, while he was in London on business, she eloped
with the co-responcleat, who was a friend of the family.
lOu the 9th of June abe sent tbe following letter to her bus-
, band, at the Conservative Club, in London. It was written
at Dover, before she erased over to the continent with her
paramour lam gone, William, for ever. I never dared
to tell you all my deceit and treachery. Curse me, for you
may well do so, for lam a curse to all I belong to. Oh !
I feel well assuredred that you will be better off without such
• miserable wretch.—Farewell" Mr. Henry Callwell, the
brother of the petitioner, subsequently went to her at
Munich and brought her home with him. She was confined
at Norwood of another child on the 19th of November :
but she afterwards renewed her intercourse with the
00-reepoodent.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram appeared for the
fitieesser ; Mr. Jones for the respondent ; Mr. Elerjeant
and Mr. Bourke for the 00-respondent.
jury found for the petitioner, and assessed the
damages in the full amount claimed—s‘boof.
The decree was suspended in order to
-allow an application
to be made with respect to the settlements and the disposi-
tion of the sum awarded as damages.