The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-15 00:00:00

BETTISON V. EYRE.-A STRANGE CASE.

This was an action to recover the sum of £4O.
0 .
Mr. Prentice was counsel for the plaintiff, Mr.
Barnard for the defendant.
The defendant was a lodging-house keeper, and
the plaintiff had been in her service as a domestic.
In 1857, wnen the plaintiff was only 17 years of age
and was in the defendant's service, she was either
criminally a,saulted or seduced by a young mAn
who was on a visit at the time in the defendant's
house. The plaintiff was in such a state that she
was unable to give evidence before the magistrate,
and the case was remanded ;but the case could not
be proceeded with, as the girl, instead of getting
i
better, got worse, and became nsane. Upon that,
the young man or his friends, by way of amends for
his conduct, paid the defendant £4O for the girl's
benefit. It was arranged by the girl's friends that
the money should be paid into the bank for her
benefit. The father-in-law some time after made
some inquiries about the money, and then the de-
fendant produced an account purporting that there
was only a balance of £lO left, the rest having been
laid out for her benefit in necessaries, &c. _

The defendant offered to give an I 0 U for the LlO.
The defence was certainly a very curious one—
vlz., that the defendant did not receive any money
for the girl's benefit, but produced the sum of £4O
to pacify her; and Mr. Barnard, the defendant's
counsel, intimated to him that he must consent to
a verdict for £2O, or he should throw up the case.
The defendant would not consent, and the conse-
quence was that the jury immediately gave a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for £3O.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell)

BULLOCK WEBSTER V. BULLOCK WEBSTER AND

YONGE.

This was an undefended suit, instituted by the
husband for a dissolution of marriage, on the ground
of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, who
holds the rank of captain in the 61st Regiment of
Foot.

Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner.
It appeared that the parties were married in 1852,
and cohabited until 1860, daring which period the
respondent gave birth to two sons and two daughters.
They resided first at Hendon, after which they re-
moved to Brecon, where the petitioner took a farm,
in the management of which he was unsuccessful,
and the father of the respondent, who became em-
barrassed, withdrew an allowance of £l2O a year,
which he had granted them for some time. The re-
spondent became very much dissatisfied with their
situation, but up to this time there was no rupture
between her and her husband. The petitioner after-
wards accepted the situation of guard on the railway
station at Swindon, where they resided for some
time, when the petitioner gave up his situation and
removed with his wife to Tenby, in Pembrokeshire.
He took a house at No. 1, Brighton-place in that
town, but not obtaining any employment in the
neighbourhood he returned to London, where he got
the situation of secretary to the Dental Hospital,
Soho-square. This took place at the end of Decem-
ber, 1861, and after he left Tenby the respondent
addressed him letters written in affectionate terms,
although it was alleged that at the time she was
carrying on an illicit intercourse with co-respondent.

Caroline Price said she was a friend of Mr. and
Mrs. Webster, and she visited them after their mar-
riage. They appeared to live happy together, and
the respondent corresponded with her from time to
time. She identified the letters alluded to as being
in the handwriting of respondent.
Louisa Evans, wife of William Evans, formerly a
superintendent in police, said she
lived opposite Mr. Webster and his wife at Tenby,
and knew them perfectly by sight. The March
after Mr. Webster left for London she noticed that a
gentleman, whom she subsequently ascertained was
Captain Yonge, came to Mrs. Webster's frequently.
He was in the habit of remaining till five in the
afternoon, and sometimes later.
Mary Price, a servant at Mr. Webster's.
stated that after her master left, Captain Yonge
visited her mistress frequently. He was in the
habit of calling every Sunday, and sometimes
on week days. He came on Sundays while
she was absent at evening service, and remained
till late in the evening. He generally came about 2
in the afternoon on week days, and then she was
sent out with the children. Mrs Webster left Tenby
in December, and told witness she was going to
Haverfordwest, but gave no directions about the
forwarding of her letters. She returned in about five
weeks, and told her she had had a baby during her
absence.

Evidence was then given of the co-respondent
having instructed a medical gentlemen to take
lodgings for Webster at Haverfordwest, and to his
having offered subsequently to provide for the child
after its birth. Mrs. Webster first registered the
child at the parish church under the name of Henry
William Winter; father, Henry Winter, mother,
Rose Lavine, which was ber maiden name. She
afterwards altered the entry, giving the child the
name of Webster, and her proper name as that of the
mother and father. The handwriting of both entries
was recognised to be the respondent's.
The Court pronounced the decree nisi, with costs
against the co-respondent.