The Express.
London, England, 1858-07-29 00:00:00

OOURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAIIBJIB.
(Bakes the Judas Ordinary.)

This was • suit for judicial reparation, promoted by the
husband on the ground of adultery. The marriage took
plea in October, 1847, at which time Mrs. Wells was not
more than 14 years of age. The match had been made alto-
pale without the knowledge of the petitioner's parents, and
it had received a very reluctant assent from the bride's
father. The young couple were separated in 1860
-when the petitioner went to America to push his
fortunes as an engineer; the respondent remaining with her
mother, Mrs. Cox' who had, in the meantime, become a
widow. Her first child was born soon after Mr. Wells had
left Engbutd. After an absence of some months he returned,
and renewed his cohabitation with her, their abode being at
Peckham. About this liras Mr. Wells alleged that hie
wife had addicted herself to habits of intemperance ; and
on the 4th of November, 1868, he found her drinkiasiwtith
• distant relative, named Mrs. Lowe. He im
ordered Mrs. Lows out of the house, and the respondent
insisted on going with her. She did not return till the
following night, and on the next morning she lit her
husband's roof altogether, and took lodgings in Albany-road
Camberwell. The adultery which formed the ground of the
present suit was alleged to have been committed with two
persona, one being a man named Berryman, who w lodging
I with her mother while Mr. Wells was in America; and the
other being a young man named Wildman, with whom, it
was stated she had had an improper intimacy while
ahe wee liviug with her husband In 1866. The first charge
rested chiefly upon the evidence of a servant, who deposed
that she had several times seen the pestles in bed together.
In support of the other allegation, another *errant,
named Handooek, had been examined, and she desoribei
various ads of feinillarlty which she had witnessed. On ma
occasion Wildman had taksa the t to Cremorse,
and they had not returned till our in morning ; and on
another °cession they had been in a bedroom together for a
considerable period. Mr. Wells, wbe did not eppreve of
Mr. Wildman's visite, bad indicted personal elumtimenstt
upon him. There was a very novel plea of ccadcastien—
namely, an allegation that while the suit was pending the
ondent had an interview with her husband, and that he
had had matrimonial intercourse with her, but this plea WU
not substantiated. _

Bir C. Cnsawell in giving judgment went at great length
into the evidence by which the allegations had been sought
to be supported or denied. With regard to the adultery
which Mrs. Wells was maid to have committed with Berry-
man, he eoufeassl that if be had had to found his decree
with reference to that charge alone, he should have had
great diffloalty In anteing at a satisfactory decision. With
regard to the averment+ relative to Wildman, however,the case
was different. If the evidence of Handoock was to be believed,
then undoubtedly Mrs. Wells had been guilty of the offence
of which she was accused. It was alleged on her part that
Wildman's visitshad been with the knowledge of the husband,
aftiritvtleiv. wishing
beiret towdsbe evidence to tothetothayw thawiret en onwiethocoshim-
aka, when Mr. Wells had found him in his house, he broke a
stink over hie head; and the fact was corroborated by two Ist-
he cwhich Wildman admitted he bad written. In these letters
hargd Wells with having committed a brutal assault
upon him, and thn ateued him with legal proceedings, which,
however, be had never thought proper to take. Not only
was the evidence of Hendon& supported by other witnesses,
but it was in some manner confirmed by the evidence of
Wildman himself. He confessed that they had frequently
visited bar at her husband's house, that he had frequently
east elsewhere, end that he had been out with her lab at
=lt was true that he denied ever having committed
Ty with her. Hie words were "I have btu very ire:
leading, but not quite eo bed as that." Still Ms own admk
@ions, coupled with the testimony of other witnesses, were
very snob calculated to sustain the positive statements of
Handout ; mad the court could not but come to the conclusion
that Mrs. Wells, in company with this person, had felled in her
=2: the =Triage vow. He (the learned judge) must
ounce tor the separation. With regard to the
addition/reticle pleading condonation, it was contended
that the husband owlet not to be wiled ea to pay the costa,
ameensed upon a pies which wee wealesey darns. It was
howaver,very difiloalttodraw a bosh sodess: for aprockx
wadi be asset hissed who ahead ratan to lAN before the
met Noy plea whisk • web wished to Ns up in meet to
ahl•IPI liddhey. Hs (Ow hewed kid(*) lbersekthers
hark lid AD web d the rblllidel articles went be Wowed.
At dweensoliwe ha wad sot dead bat that ewe bed bees
a aloweibb
beadle
to =olio lambda Ye • e=
W
aright be la e ;
bad beam, se to whetter =are tirdwallit4
CisWt. it wadi have bed mewed by the ad .
beem mewl Ila selbrewas to eke plea of aosidtrttb. .
csaoru. r. catorm..--rwa Law OP wurci. Dttatill
istroirravir DECISION.
Sir C. Ovewerell aloe gave judgment is this awe, ailtt
Dr
a Willer a jwildei wyaratiou, faelituled 1.7 the wife d
Dr. Cargill, kb d Idaerdards. TT" Vmail
• dessedeu. willed rause, for twe yews
2478.11, a the rdrinesmisekberpl;lo:
beck to bar father, with essig
_hr ti
of width there was sat the allapilded Miss^ awl delledil•
that be would waver live wilt bar oohs. then use to
Autralle..lW hie he sada leer of btu till Mai
last, whoa, bphig reborsedlesad, be abirewsd a Water
to
hir, =tome,. sow live togetidr.
To that wile se idewar, bet coseamaid
Übe resist ewR The ise:Ce• the dud bed to MAO
was, dither tire vieto iberclligivell lir at4
wee blow away by dr te ors
babildlima Hs (Ur Cl. Carswell) wee of eglidul fitl 110
valWa right to obt&or protection of her wrekage
.Za veaold be evisoved lay • kW
s oillw":7`girinfort lid it =eil le him that webs
abort of actual deprive a vile wile
had been deserted far two yen sad upwards of MI dada to
• divorce, if the demolk• fol been coupled with addllrft
sad to a judicial espearstion, if it had not. The Ouse
moat, t) e, great UN separation as preyed.