The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-30 00:00:00

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before the Judge-Ordinary, Mr. Baron Martin, and
Mr. Justice Willes.)
WITHERS V. WITHERS AND JENKINS.

Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Karslake, appeared for
the petitioner.
Dr. Deane stated that Henry Withers and Jane
Mary Cramp were married on the 16th of Au.
gust, 1840, and cohabited in Princes-street,
Kennington, in the same house with Mr. and
Mrs. Albert Jenkins, the brother-in-law and the
sister of Mrs. Withers. In March, 1841, Mrs.
Withers quitted the house, leaving a letter for
Mr. Albert Jenkins, in which she said she had been
miserable ever since her marriage, and she had,
therefore, made up her mind to go away from Eng-
land and from her husband, and she hoped the
separation would be mutually beneficial. The co-
respondent, Michael Robert Jenkins, with whom
she eloped, was not related to Mr. Albert Jenkins.
He was a foreign traveller for a house of business,
and after tho elopement he and Mrs. Withers visited
different parts of the continent. In 1857 and 1858
they were living together as man and wife at Box
Cottage, Tottenham. She had had no children by
her husband, but she had children by Jenkins.
Mrs. Susannah Williams said that her first hus-
band was Mr. Albert Jenkins, to whom she was
married at the same time and place that her sister
the respondent was married to the petitioner. She
proved the cohabitation of Mr. and Mrs. Withers,
and her elopement and the receipt of the letter
announcing it, as stated by the learned counsel.
She afterwards saw her sister in 1855, in 1857, end
1859.

In answer to quesiions put by their lordships,
the witness stated that Withers did not live con-
stantly with his wife after the marriage, but came
to see her on a Saturday, and went away on the
Monday morning. He was in some business that
took him away, but she could 'not tell what it was.
They lived happily together, and she did not com-
plain of being . left alone during the week.
Mrs. Withers became acquainted with the co-re-
spondent about a month after the marriage. She
and Mrs Withers were walking in the street when
they met him, and he called at the house about
a fortnight afterwards. He appeared to be an ac-
quaintance of Mrs. Withers. Mr. and Mrs. Withers
had no quarrel before her elopement.
Evidence was then given of the cohabitation of
Mrs. Withers and the co-respondent at Box-cot-
tage, Tottenham, from September, 1857, to Sep-
tember, 1858, as Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins.
Mrs. Williams was then recalled by their Lord-
ships, and, in answer to further questions, said that
she knew nothing about Withers's family. His
mother was a woman of independent fortune, but
she did not know where she lived. She and Mrs.
Withers first met Albert Jenkins and Withers at
the house of a married sister of theirs in London.
She believed that Withers was a draper's assistant.
Mrs. Withers had been on intimate terms with
Michael Jenkins before her marriage. Mrs.
Withers then lived in London.

The Judge-Ordinary said it was quite palpable
that the Court had not got to the bottom of the
case. Mrs. Williams at first told the Court that
the respondent was not acquainted with Michael
Jenkins until after the marriage, but she now said
that they were intimate before the marriage. He
should like to see Mr. Henry Withers.
4, The petitioner was accordingly examined by
the Court.—He said that he made the acquaint-
ance of the respondent in 1840, when she and
her sister were in the same house of business, a
draper's, at Southampton, in which he was em-
ployed.. They all came to London, and flab re-
spondent took a milliner's situation in Baker-street,
her sister took a dreismaker's situation in Bond-
street, andhe was employed in Russell street, Covent-
garden. Albert Jenkins was a clerk in the City.
They met on Sundays, sometimes at the house of
a married sister of the respondent, and they were
all four married on the same day. She then left
her situation and lived with the Jenkinses. He
t'bmained in his situation and was unable to go to
her except on Sundays. He knew nothing of
Michael Jenkins and never heard of him until his
wife's elopement. He did not know what had be-
come of her until 1846, and then he met one of her
sisters, who told him that she had had a child by
Jenkins.

The Judge Ordinary said that the petitionli's
case as at first presented to the Court was by no
means satisfactory. From the evidence of Mrs.
Williams the Court was naturally led to suspect
that there might be something in the case which
would affect the petitioner's claim to the relief he
prayed. He had, therefore, been examined with
the view of eliciting from him something which
might confirm that suspicion, but the story he told
was perfectly natural and satisfactory. The re-
spondent knew what his situation was at the time
of the marriage, and she could not, therefore, com-
plain of his leaving her alone on week days while
he was engaged in business.
The marriage was dissolved, and the co respon-
dent was condemned in costs.

FURNESS V. FURNESS.
Mr. lluddleston, Q C., and Mr. E. Ward were
counsel for the petitioner.
The marriage in this case took place in 1837, and
the parties lived together until 1846, and had two
children. Robert Furness, the respondent, was an