Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-07-13 00:00:00

ha i occ

~urre~

The husband subsequently made

a that

formed a crnnina

I intercourse with

s otherwise leading a life of

, -
present suit. Mr. Macqueen appetred for the petitioner

•
kut evidence having been given in support of the
petition, the jury found a verdict for Mr. Howes.
HERVEY v. lIERVEY AND LORD RIBBLESDALE.—This

living the

adultery,

was a cau

Arthur. William Hervey, on the
tern .with Lord Ribblesdale.

y Henry

ground of his wife's adul-
The petition pleaded the
t St. George's,

marriage on the 3rd of October, 1857

cohabitation in Grosyenor-sqnarE

other places, and the commission of adultery on. the 17th

of September, 1858. The respondent had put in an answer

denying the adultery, but the correspondent had not given
in any plea. Mr. Hervey, who was the son of Lord Wm.

Hervey, married -a person of the name of Mary Cox, but
who had been known as Mrs. Flemming, and had had seve-

by Lot

narriorse was not

1858. It was* alleg

Ir. I-1(

cri until Sep-

had always

treated his: wife with the greatest possible kindness, and
bad I

t anything

17th of September, when he d

me until the

)vered, for the

\ by a letter from her, which had since been destroyed, that
she had gone away with Lord Ribblesdale, who it appeared

was als3 a married man. Evidence was adduced to show

under the name of •Nerve

the co-respondent had

lived with Mrs. Hervey at Cintra-villas, near Shanklin, in

the Isle of Wight, where they o,

ci the same

Dr. PhillinioreTand Mr. Brand appeared for the petitioner.
The jury found that Mrs. Hervey had committed adultery
w;44, Pi hhlp:rinlP ThA court was of opinion the

'petitioner had fully established his case, and pronounced for
the divorce, and condemned the co-respondent in costs.

WAR'. ER V. WARNER AND MAYO.---Dr. Phillimore and
i..llAnetitioiler. In this case the

'riciaxc

petitioner

grocer at Yeovil, in

married in 1847, and lip

Somerst.siiire. 11€

very happily with his wife for

some time ; but, after the lapse of a year or more, sh,
tracted habit's of excessive intemperance. This lato remora
strances on the part of the husband ; but Mrs. Warner still
continued in her conrse of drinking

I October, 1853, shE

nd on the 17th

Menly left Yeovil and went by railway

to Taunton, where it was
pleided
she passed the night with
the co-respondent, a solicitor, named William Henry Mayo.
She returned to Yeovil the next day; lntt instead of going
home, she went to an inn, and wrote mr, Warner a peni-
_ ..
ye her back,

teutial letter

refused' :to

Arate and apart. It
Idultery subse-

and from that tune they had livE
plthtdE4' tlvit she had • committ

quently with another party. The jury found there was not
sufficient evidence before them to prove that,Mr. kayo was
the person' with whom .the''adultory,. had bivn committed.
Further evidence having ben given to substantiate the
Charge of adultery; their, lordships. were, _pt.:, opinion the
,husband had clearly made out his casc,,,and was entitled to
a 'dissolution of the marriage. Dr. Deane,. on behalf of

Mr. Mayo, applied for that gentleman's cost

thought it was not a c

The Court

PARKE

v. PARKS

M`LEop

)ndent his

and Dr. Spinks a

Mr. Serjeaut Pigott

1 for the petifikiner, aid Dr. Swabey

for the; respondent. Mr. George Parker prayed for a
divorce on account of his wife's adultery with the co-

respondent, Robert Philip M'Leod ' The maniage took

place at Cambridge in 1849, and

)1. London-,down to
the summer of 1856, when they left the house of a Mrs.
Robinson in Denmark-terrace, Islington, and went to live
with some of Air. Parker's relation's in Queen's-road,
gent'4ark. It appeared that differences occurred between
Mrs. Parker and her husband's aunt, in consequMice of which

various ludgings in
,tli.

together, a

ieightp

it was-agreed ha

nd return to

making her

ntly cora-

there

Justiec Wightman said.

adultei

had connived at or

Ltry, therefor(

evidence, it

give a verdict

red 11l t Mrs Part

who was the

the respondent left ti

habits of

free will. Thuir, lordship

ner deposed that

to lead thon.to the int

d, of her own

ik e condunati

waB no evidence

Under all these cirearnstar

divorec

BILLER V. BILLS, AND Git

icen anything

,e husband

neared for Mr. BillerllThe petitioner, Mr. John
Biller, married the respondent in 1843, and there were
seven children of the marrikr,e. The parties chabited is
various. places, and in 1855, while living at Lewisham.
th-2 cu-respondent, Mr. George Henry Green, came to lodge
with them. On the sth of ,January, 1856, he availed him:
self of the absence of the Imsbaiid to elope with gr.'
Biller, and- she had since resided with him at Ilarlesdrso"
green, and Turriano-row, Kentish-town. Proof No
given -that she had been &livered of a child in Decem,',b4;
.1856. The .jury found the adultery fully proved•
court decreed the dissolution of the marringo, with
against the o )-respondent.

nd Dr

abey u.r