The Express.
London, England, 1868-01-23 00:00:00

_--__
LAM INTELLIGINCIL
(THIS DAT.)

CRT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
NOILMS v. NOR2II.
.C.. and Dr. Tristram for the petitioner,
I..l,ourerQ at Halstead, in Nisei. He had married
' .powlent in 1835,in consequence of and lived with her tsurprisingill 1841, whMa
en
trAt.l from her
hs (petitioner's) own house. He wee pre-
. man in I
his poverty from taking proceeding' against her
• is . and be now proved against her • growl case of
.• s. h some person unknown.

HANCOCK r. HANCOCK AIM ettrra.
y., pritchsel for the petitioner ; Dr. &Finks, Q.C., for
Len-
2. the daughter of a eowkeeper leer
In
1;i here rtihll 1881, w&hlaen her Illigfirts 'iinad be':
...,'iditit‘titlken that he was obliged to send her back to
It He then went to Penzance, and in seven or
understauding that she wart reformed, he
outita,her home again. After a short time, however,
hint and wrote him • letter,
_signed "Yo:urt
it
t, le informing hint that she had
broken
dr ..arully and recommending him to for-
Tt,Loltort`time ego' he read an account in a news-
P • .pplicattou she had made to a rases-
h.,: a protection order, her object being to pro-
,- furniture against the co-respondent with whom
Fiuico. The petitioner came tip to Lon-
-I,L Older dissolved,. and began proceedings for
h,r,• was DO opposition. but the co-respondent
that Le was unaware that the respondent was a
1 that be had left her the moment he
',tot woutatt. ant
. underst,ssl how the Lets really were.
there,: me without costs.
(.. HERBERT") T. CRABB.
anal Dr. Tristram for the petitioner ;
It• Searle for the respondent.
was the petition of Louisa Crabb (better known as
• •• 11,thert, the manager of St. James's Theatre) for a
• on the ground of adultery and desertion. She was
ari.d to the respondent in June, 1865, at Holy Trinity
F.riston, and they cohabited at Onslow-terrace
where a child was born in April,
I •TL, rc't of the case is described in the evidence.
Folto—l reside at Clifton, and am sister to
ttr I• .IIeT Iler maiden name was Maynard. I visited
p. .ift..r ht r marriage. Mr. Cribb was a stockbroker.
p lived with Inv sister at Hana-place, Chelsea. They
,ml to Ia• living comfortably. I visited them in 1857,
rtly after the birth of their son. I stayed with them
fortnight. Th,Te was a dispute about a servant
lane. The petitioner had not recovered from her
a, uteut at that time. I had found the respondent
.t up with Jane in his dressing-room one morning, I
a the door open, and said," Mr. Crabb,l will not allow
if my sister does." They were whispering together.
t..ld my sister, who said the woman must leave the house.
rktum..l to go, and Mr. Crabb would not allow Ler to
Crabb then went away, and my sister sent for
• to turn Jane out of the house; but he declined
I remained in the house several days after.-
..I, but Mr. Cribb never returned while I was there.
o. tl•,. Itqh of November last I saw the respondent in the
nee of other witnesses. Since then my sister has sup-
; •:,I herself on the stage.
MI.. (lab}, said—l lived with my husband fora year at
ate-terrace and from thence we removed to Hans-
I hail reason to complain of neglect on the part of
•i,oibaad. Ile would be out all night and his behaviour
! generally was bad. When he stayed out he
said that he bad been playing at whist. He did
...t .i,ink. In 1567 I had words with him respecting •
newt. After my confinement I was very ill for some
t ..e. The respondent went away from me on that occa.
• . for two or three days without telling me where he
I gone. When he returned he showed me no attention,
• .1 he occupied the servants, and would not let theta attend
: •.... I often remonstrated with him about Jane. He kept
• r downstairs and gave her the keys. When the nurse
for wine she would not let her have it. My husband
Horted her in that conduct. That went on till my sis-
:one to me. I don't think he slept in the house after
time he left me, as my sister has describtal. He did,
L •we.er, come to the house for some of his clothes. We
!...1 had &dispute before that about some other ?Macon-
•i ;,-t of hie. He was very angry about it, but I did not
.w that he was going to leave one. I sent
• y solicitor to him, and he said that I
•• •uld have' 51. • quarter on application at Heare's bank.
was paid me twice ; but on applying for it the third
I found that the respondent's account was closed.
•I
att.rwarde received information that he had gone away
t., Frost that moment I lost all trace of him, and
I live never received money or letters from him since. I
I se. however, met him in the street about three times.
I Law maintained my child ever since.
l:v the Jud se Ordinary—l communicated with him
i!outtgli my attorney within a few days after he left me; for
11...1 no means on which tolive,antl I was too ill to take an
t,.4.,,,entent. I wanted my husband to come back to me.
I „t, no written agreement for the payment of the IDOL
t,-tr. I was content that he should live separate from
long as that was paid.
I lenry 11. Mnrdogh—l em • merchant at Great
• tielu'a, Bishopitgate. From 11458 to 1861 I resided at
•tta. I knew Mr. Chubb, the respondent. I left him
1., it,. Ile was an indigo planter's assistant. I have
• since his return to England. That was at his
io. Finch-lane, where he is in a stockbroker's tiros.
It Rt. Wright, clerk to the petitioner's solicitor, served
station on the respondent in St. James's-street. lied
1.. tit Pi, Finch-lane.
Mint live in the service of Mrs. Julia
l'i..eott. I was with her in lteiG at 2'), Stanley-villas,
I remember Mr. Crabb coming to the house.
Tint tined there all night, and slept with my mistress.
limisme.l more than once. Last year I saw bins in
the ph, Wu of Mrs. Pelt* and Mrs. Wright. Mrs. Fres.
anti wa, not the petitioner.
Mr. Wright. the petitioner's attorney (called at the re-
que.t of th.-e-ort) -The petitioner desired me to communi-
,,te with lot loed,,nd's solicitors, Messrs. Lake and Kendal,
r how lia.l brought her M. I wasdirected to arrange
t..13w, for the maintenance of her child. She told me that
the clerk had informed her that if she had an attorney he
~ to communicate with Messrs. Lake and Kendal, with
w to an arrangement for the maintenance of the
• I saw Mr. George Lake, and my communications
• confined to that subject. There was no question of
Mr Crabb's return to his wife. A written agreement was
Lrtru out relative to the allowance. [This was produced,
it proved to be a regular separation deed, executed by
Are. l'e.ibb as well as the respondent.)
The Court—ln that state of things, what becomes of the

SAUL

ge 90
see 06i
ge 101
I
we la
ei 08 xd 971 id
106 100 k Heir
106 107
gg 101
gg 100
101 lag
ge lon

via e

1t

107 100 104 7i
101 103
1111 110 i 1
11 1101
111 111 1i