The Express.
London, England, 1858-07-17 00:00:00

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAI7BI36.—JOLT 16.
(Bohn the Zap Oldbury.)
WILLI) g. WILI4I.—fINGOLLI CA I.

This was a suit for judicial operation, promoted by the
huabsad on the ground of adultery ; and it was tried on the
affidavits taken in the Consistorial Court before the new law
of divorce came into operation.
The merrier) took place in October, 1847, at which time
Mrs. Well, was not more than 14 years of age. The match
had been made altogether without the knowledge of the peti-
tioner'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, booms a
widow. Her first child was born soon titer Mr. Wells had
left England. After an absence of some months he returned,
and renewed his cohabitation with her, their abode being at
Camberwell. About this this Mr. Wells alleged that his
wife had addicted herself to habits of intemper-
ance; sad on the 4th of November, 1856, he found
her drinking with a distant relative, named Mrs. Lowe,
He immediately ordered Mrs. Lowe out of the house, end the
respondent initiated on going with her. She did not return
till the following night, and on the neat morning she left 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
persons, one being a man named Berryman, who was lodging
with her mother while Mr. Wells was in America; and the
other being a young man named Wildman, with whom it
was stated that she had had an improper intimacy while she
was living with her husband in 1865. The first charge rested
chiefly upon the evidence of a anent named Capon, who
deposed that she had several times seen the parties in bed
together. In support of the other allegation a servant
named Handcock had been examined, and she described
various acts of familiarity which she bad witnessed. On one
ocosaion Wildman had taken the respondent to Crentorne,
and they had not returned till one in the morning; and on
another oassion they had been in a bedroom together for a
considerable period. Mr. Wells, who did not approve of Mr.
Wildman's visite, bad once kicked him into the street, and
at another time had inflicted primal chastisement upon him.
On behalf of the respondent, Mr. Wells was charged with
being a person of violent temper, and with having treated
his wife with cruelty and neglect. It was tine that Berry-
man, being in difficultio, and hiding from the shears'
odium, had found a shelter in Mrs. Cox 's house ; but Mrs.
Con, and several other witnesses, declared that they had
never seen the respondent act with the least Impropriety
towards him. Berryman himself had been tendered as a
witness,: but while under examination he had suddenly
quitted the foe, and had never been seen since. As to
Wildman, he had himself given evidence, in which, while
admitting that his behaviour towards Mrs. Wells had been
betimes; he denied that it Lad ever been criminal. In a
word, it was contended that Mrs. Wells's waded had DOM
been anything but exemplary.
There was a very noel plea of condonatke in this ore—
aamely, an allegation that while the suit was pending the
respondent had had an interview with her husband, and that
hlld matrimonial intercourse with bee. It was ad-
mitted that no precedent could be found for such an aver-
ment ; but it was contended that such an act on the part of
the petitioner would operate as a ber to the suit.
Sir C. Croswell took time to consider his judgment,

The petitioner wag the wile of Mr. William Hall, a
painter and glazier at Liverpool. The parties were married at
Wigan in 1839, and they had had one child; but the pad.
timer prayed a judicial separation on the g.ronad that her
husband bad kicked her, had beaten her with a strap, had
out her with a knife, end had finally deserted her.
The court granted the applioatioa.

THOMPSON V. THOMPSON.

Dr. Middleton applied on behalf of Mrs. Thompson for a
judicial separation from her husband, James Henry Thomp-
son, on the around of desertion. The marriage had taken
place in 1838 without th 2 knowledge of the petitioner. father,
a publioui, and she lived at home for the first three months.
Her father then discovered the marriage and sent her to her
husband. They cohabited for some years at Leeds and had
two children ; but while the petitioner wee confined with her
yoangint child, the respondent, who had become unsteady,
sold up the furniture by amnion and left her. She had seen
lihn twice since, and he bed pendeed to return to her, but he
bed not done so. The hem& doctor admitted that the
object of the suit was to iseseet the respondent (who did not
appear) from alaimh►l
Sir CC Wrap emit pepntTielongtshe ghtto a Yacqr.*
which
aright hereafter become a very important one, and he must
therefore take time to cowhide what decision he ought to come
to with reference to It.