Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-05-12 00:00:00

MAINTENANCE OF A WIFE.—EXTRAORDINARY
DISCLOSURES.
in`
v LLOYD.- The hearing of this case was resumed
in'the Court of Common Pleas on Tuesday. The defendant,
it will be recollected, is a captain in the Royal Navy, and
resisted the present demand on the ground of adultery, which
it was contended by the plaintiff he had condoned, and
thereby was liable for his wife's debts. Mr. Laxton and
Mr. Patchett appeared for .the plaintiff. Mr. O`Mally,
Q C., and Mr. Francis were counsel for the defendant. The
first witness called on Tuesday morning was Captain Lloyd,
who deposed : am a captain in the Royal Navy, but with no
other means than my pay. I was married in 1847, and
lived three months happily with my wife at Jersey. When
I went on service to India I regularly corresponded with
her during my. absence, and the three years I was absent I
remitted her about £4OO. I returned to England in
October, 1850, and eit was not tit then that I -had the
slightest intimation that my wife had left my house and
deserted my child. I knew she had been on a visit to her
brother, Captain Wragge, near InYerness, but I expected
she would have returned to have received me. Imnaediately
on the ship dropping her anchor in Plymouth Sound I
sent her two letters containing money. I had received a
letter from my aunt, and as soon as the.shipewas' paid off I
went tee Jersey and saw my child at my wife's aunt's. I
then found my house shut up, and I could not gain any
intelligence of my wife's whereabouts. I commuriicated.
with her.hrother, but he declined to give me"the..required
information, and I was equally unsuccessful in other inquieies
I had instituted for the same purpose. In the latter end of
1851, or the beginning of 1852, I received letters' from 'my.
wife, bearing the Portsmouth . postmark, on board the
Waterloo, and in consequence of the request it contained I
granted her an interview at the Chest Hotel, at Chatham.
• I met he there ahout the 17th January; between. six and seven
-o'clock in the evening. I asked lier Where she had been, and why
she ha.&deserted me and her child ; but she said she, could
not tell tile, and nothing further then' pa.esed (The letter
asking for the interview was then put in and read. It profess2' d
great affection for her husband, and prayed Cod to . guard
him on his voyage. _lt denied certain reports that had been
circulated in reference to them, and asked him to meet
her.) At the parting on the above interview, I appointed
to meet her on the 'following morning, . to take her to
see her son. The first interview lasted about half an
hour. On the folloWing morning I met her at the hotel,
and conducted her to the Misses Davis, to see her child.
She then asked me to take a cottage for her. and he reeon-
ciled to her.. I replied she must give a detailed and truth-
ful statenient of the' life she had been leadiriie for the
sixteen or seventeen months previously. She began_
to cry, sayingshe could not do it by word of mouth, but
that if I would return to my ship she would be prepared
to give it to me in a few .days: I returned to my.ship and
she remained 'at the MisSes Davis'. Four days after. I
again 'saw her there, about seven o'clock in the evening..
She then presented to me a written statement, the contents
of 'which greatly shocked me, and I exclaimed, "-eh God,
my worst fears are realised." . She cried and asked me to
forgive her, and she would still make me a good wife. She •
clung to my knees, imploring me to do as she requested In
the written statement she confessed that she had had
a child by Mr. Winslow. Whilst she was clinging
to my knees I said, ." Phillis; I pity and forgive
you;,. shall never-tell: tales against you," and I tore
the. written . statement up and threw. it behind the fire,
adding, " You . never Can live with me again as
my wife;" , She asked me to give up my. commission
and go to the Continent, and reside with her and her
two children till all had blown over. I, replied she
seemed to be reckless of my feelings, and of the dis-
honour she had brought upon me and her child, and
that she must leave Miss Davis's house. I deny that
what my wife said occurred between us took place. She,
however, remained in the house that night, :and on the
following morning I informed her she must leave, and I
made arrangements for her leaving. She threatened to
destroy -herself if I did not relent, but I declined to
make any answer to her importunities to receive her again
as my wife. After breakfast I went out. with my son for
a walk. I had not been absent more than half an hour
when I was fetched home, where I found my wife in a
state of stapour from having taken laudanum. I went for
an emetic, which was administered to her. • She appeared
very ill, and was put to bed. In the evening, at her • re-
quest, I went to her room. She said she did 114 think
she could live out the night, and asked me to remain in her
room. I remained in the room off and on the greater part of
the night. Miss Davis remained in attendance upon her till
two or throe o'clock in the morning, .and I remained in the
room with her till between five and six o'clock in the morning.
Mrs. Lloyd suffered great thirst during the night, and I
frequently gave her water. I did not undress or go to bed,
and it is untrue that intercourse took place between us
that night. On the following day I told her she must
leave, and I accompanied her to the station and took my
leave of her. I saw her again at Blackheath about the
end of February. I met her there in consequence of a letter
I had received from her, and the interview lasted about
twenty minutes. She was in bed, and appeared to. he very
poorly end inn state of penury. I saw her in the bedroom
about six in the evening, her nurse, with her child, being
present the whole of the time. She asked me to receive
her again as my wife, but I told-her. it ,was impossible.
had to go to the Admiralty the following day, and I told her
so, and in the evening of that day. I accidentally met her at
the London-bridge station ;• she got into the same carriage
with me ;' she got out at Blackheath, and I went, on to
Chatham. I next saw her in May, at Woolwich, when I
ewas fitting out my ship... I had taken an apartment for .my
son and Miss Davis at the. Ship Hotel. I met her outside
the hotel, from what a brother officer said to me. . She again
asked me to take her back, and to let her accompany me
to Malta. I told her I could not think of such a thing ;
• that I never could receive her as my wife. She appeared to
be in great penury, and I gave her £5, promising.
that, if she lived a steady life, I would befriend
her. I next. saw her at Messrs. France and Pasaner's,
the .attorney's, respecting a deed of separation, at
her request. The deed was drawn, but not signed, because
the trustee proposed declined to act. In July, 1852, I left
England on duty, and returned at Christmas, 1856. The
first time I saw her after .my return was on board the
Edinhnrgh in June, 1857. She came on hoard unexpectedly,
and I saw her on the main deck. She said she was penni-
less, and 'had come to throw herself mien my prctectiou as
my wife. I told her my affairs were in the hands 'of my
solicitor, and I should not assist her. She did not go with
me to my cabin, or any other cabin, but remained on the
main deck all the time. I insisted upon her leaving the
ship, but she refused to go, saving she wished to see Captain
Halstead. I went to Captein Halstead, and said to him.
"This is my wife; she has come to me for assistance and
support, which I decline to give ,her, and she refuses to
leave the ship until she has seen you." CaPtain Halstead
said she could not remain on board, and sent her away in
his boat. I have had no connection with my wife since our
marriage in 1847. I did not meether at any hotel at Chatham
in 1856, as deposed to by her. . I first heard in June, 1857.
through an anonymous communication, of the birth of
her third child. The plaintiff was cross-examined by
Mr. Lilian, but nothing material was elicited By the
Judge I don't remember that I said. to Dr.' Roberts,
when going down to mess,- that there was not a
brother officer on board who knew r anything about my
difference with my wife, because some of them knew of it.
I received £4O of the railway shares on my return from
India, whilst in communication with her brother, Captain
Wragge. It was money saved from what I had remitted to
her. I did not know at the time where she was residing.
I gave her small sums of money at various periods after her
confession, amounting altogether to about, £2O. I was
arranging at the time for her support under a mutual
separation. I did not know at the time she had other means
of support. The Misses Davis were called, and gave evidence
in support of the plaintiff's case. Mrs. Lloyd was very, ill
that night' and also in the morning. Mrs. Lloyd occupied
the back bed-room and Captain Lloyd the front room.
George Hales 'deposed : In June 1857 I was a sergeant of
Marines on board the Edinburgh: Mrs. Lloyd came on
board. I was stationed on the main deck. She came down
the ladder from the upper deck, - She was then alone.
Captain Lloyd came from the same direction, and found
her a few minutes afterwards. She sat on a chair
on the main deck for five or ten minutes, and on his coming
down she rose up and spoke to him. They walked to and
fro the deck, and then up the ladder to the upper deck.
During the time they were on the main deck they were on
my right. She did not go into any cabin with Captain
Lloyd. I was on guard at the time. I afterwards went to
the upper deck, and there saw her speaking to Captain Hal-
stead ; and she left the ship in the Captain's boat.. She did
not go back again to the main deck. Cross-examinee:: Mrs.
Lloyd was on the main deck about twenty minutes.
Captain Halstead deposed : In 1857 I was. in oemmand
of the Edhiburgh. I remember Mrs Lloyd being on
board. I first saw her on the after part of the upper deck,
I did not then know it was Mrs. Lloyd. At Captain
Lloyd's request I went to Mrs. Lloyd. Captain Lloyd
introduced me to her. Ho introduced me saying, "This
person is or was my wife," or some such. expression, " and
she wishes to know if she can remain on hoard." I explained
the rules of the service to her, and informed her that it was
impossible she could remain. She said she had no money
or means to go away withe upon which Captain Lloyd I
offered her money, sayinee
hog being without money should
not prevent her leaving the ship.
He took out a piece of
gold and gave it to leer;Treviously calling me to witness

that he gave it to her out of commisseration for her &esti.,
tute condition, and not because she had any claim uptm,
him. I then offered her my boat, and she left the ship in s*.
I was aware generally that he was under painful .circum-
stances with reference to his wife. I had heard it from
others as well as himself. This was the defendant's case.
The learned. counsel having addressed the jury for their
respective clients, the learned Judge commenced summing
up, observing that he would state to the jury the questions
he intended to leave to them, and then adjourn to read over
the evidence to-morrow. The questions he should submit
to them'were—First, did the husband in 1852 condone the
adultery—which meant a blotting out the offence by restor-
ing the wife -to her position as his wife ; and secondly,
supposing they were of opinion he condoned the adultery
with Mr. Winslow, had he condoned the second adultery, so
as to give her a right to pledge his credit ? The foreman
of the jury intimated to his lordship that they were all
agreed that the defendant had not condoned the adultery,
and that he was entitled to the verdict. The jury then
returned a verdict for the defendant.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER,

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT,

At the Court of Probate and Divorce,. London, on Wed-
nesdav, 'the case of Mette v. Mette came up for judgment.
The facts, as given by Sir C. Cresswell in his judgment,
explain ie .case. Bernard Mette was born at ISlarburg,
Hesse CasseL and in 1822, when he was 13 years of age,
came to England. He lived in England until the time of
his death in 1856, carrying on business as a tailor in
'Sackville-street, Piccadilly; and occasionally paying, short
'visits to Germany. In 1.836 he was ,naturalisedby Act
Hof Parliament. In' 1835 he married, at Fulham, accord-
ing to the rites and • ceremonies of the •Chureh of
England,- a lady who was a • native . ;of Frankfort-
on-the-Maine. By her he had fire children, and
she died in 1814. In 1841 he made' and' duly executed a
will. In 1846 he went to. Frankfort, -and there married,
according to the rites and ceremonies of the. German Pro-
testant Church, the sister by the half-blood of his former
wife, a native of Frankfort, the marriage being a valid one
both by the law of. Frankfort and that of Hesse Cassel. He
returned to England, and carried on business here until his.
death. By his second wife he had four children. Upon
his death all his Children were under age, and their uncle
took out administration, treating the will as having been
'revoked by the second marriage. When the eldest son of
the first marriage came of age, he prayed that the adniinis-
tration which Ita been given to his uncle might 'be
revoked, and probate granted •of the alleging that he
had, up to that period, been ignorant of his rights. The
question of the validity of the will depended upon the
apnlical,ility of the jealernent of Vice-Chancellor Stuart, in
" BrOOk v. Brook," to this case. _ The distinctions between
that case and the present were two—first, Bernard Mette
was not. a natural born British subject, but was domiciled in
England, and naturalised by Act of Parliament ; and,
secondly, his wife was a native of Frankfort, and domiciled
there until her marriage. But, if Bernard Mette was
incapacitated from contracting the marriage, no effect could
be given to the last distinction, beeause no contract could
be valid unless each party was competent to contract with
the'other. The question, therefore, rested upon the effect
of the domicile and the nataralisati,n of the deceased The
Act 'by which be was naturalised was in general terms,
providing that he was to be taken to be a liege subject of the
Crown of Great Britain to all intents and purposes. By his
own act he had placed himself in the position of a natural
born subject of this kingdom, entitled to the privileges, but
also subject to the obligations attaching to that character.
Whether he could, by abandoning his English domicile,
have regained his former position need not be considered,
because he remained domiciled in this country until his
death. He could not at the same time claim to be a liege
Subject of the Crown of England and to enjoy the privi-
lege of that status, and to be a subject of Hesse Cassel in
order to be free from the statutory obligations imposed upon
British subjects. He owed obedience to' the sth and 6th
William IV , cap. 61, and could not contract' a marriage
with the sister of his deceased wife. The second marriage
was therefore invalid, and did not revoke the will. On
these grounds the letters of administration must be revoked,
and probate of the will decreed.