The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-17 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.-July 16.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMO-
NIAL CAUSES.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
WELLS V. WELLS.-SINGULAR CASE.

This was a suit for judicial separation, promoted
by the husband on the ground of adultery ; and it
was tried on the affidavits taken in the Consistorial
Court before the new law of divorce carne into ope-
ration.

The marriage took place in October, 1847, at
which time Mrs. Wells was not more than 14 years
of age. The match had been made altogether with-
out the knowledge of the petitioner's parents, and
it had received a very reluctant assent from- the
bride's father. The young couple were separated
in 1850, when the petitioner went to America to
push his fortunes as an engineer ; the respondent
remaining with her mother, Mrs. Cox, who had in
the meantime become a widow. Her first child was
born soon after Mr. Wells had left England. After
an absence of some months he returned, and re-
newed his cohabitation with her, their abode being
at Camberwell. About this time Mr. Wells al-
leged that h's wife bad addicted herself to habits of
intempt ranee ; and on the 4th of November, 1856,
he found her drinking with a distant relative named
Mrs. Lowe. He immediately ordered Mrs. Lowe
out of the holm, and the respondent insisted on
going with her. She did not return till the follow-
ing night, and on the next morning she left her
husband's roof altogether, and took lodgings in
Albany-road, Camberwell. The adultery which
formed the ground of the present suit was alleged
to have been committed with two persons, one
being a max named Berryman, who wag lodging
with her mother while Mr. Wells was in America ;
and the other being a young man named Wildman,
with whom it was stated that she had had an im-
proper intimacy while she was living with her hus-
band in 1855. The first charge rested chicly upon
the evidence of a servant named Capon, who de-
posed that she had several times seen the parties
in bed together. In support of the other al-
legation a servant named Handcock had been
examined, and she described various acts of
familiarity which she had witnessed. On one occasion
Wildman had taken the respondent to Cremorne,
and they had not returned till one in the morning I
and ou another occasion they had been in a bed-
room together for a considerable period. Mr.,
Wells, who did not approve of Mr. Wildman 's
visits, had once kicked him into the street, and at
another time had inflicted personal chastisement
upon him.
On behalf of the respondent, Mr. Wells was
charged with being a person of violent temper, and
with having treated his wife with cruelty and ne-
glect. It was true that Berryman, being in diffi-
from the Iheriotlie ; sheriffs'
buteer Mrs,
s, had
foundeultie s,
a Cox, and several other witnesses, declared that
ansdhelhtiedrinign Mrs.
they had never seen the respondent act with the
least impropriety towards him. Berryman himself
had been tendered as a witness, but while under
examination he bad suddenly quitted the office,
and had never been seen since. As to Wildman,
he had himself given evidence, in which, w lea -
mitting that his behaviour towards Mrs. Wells had
been indiscreet, he denied that it had
ever been
criminal. In a word, it was contended that Mrs.
Wells's conduct had never been anything but ex-
emplary.

There was a very novel plea of condonation in
this case—namely, an allegation that while the suit
was pending the respondent had bad an interview
with her husband, and that he had had matrimonial
intercourse with her. It was admitted that no
precedent could be found for such an averment ;
but it was contended that such an act on the part
of the petitioner would operate as a bar to the suit.
Sir C. Creswell took time to consider his judg-
ment.