The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. Feb. 21.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
:Before the Judge-Ordinary and Common Juries.)

DOYLEY V. DOYLEY AND BALDIE.
Dr. Swabey and Mr. R. M. Kerr conducted the

petitioner's case.
This was a petition presented by Thomas Doyley
praying for a dissolution of his marriage with
Louisa Doyley on the ground of her adultery with
Wm. Dacre Baldie. The respondents pleaded a
denial of the adultery, but did not appear to sup-
port their plea. It appeared that the parties were
married at the church of St. Giles's-in-the-Fields,
in May, 1852, when the petitioner was 31 and the
respondent was 30 years of age. They resided at
various places until 1857, and one child was born
during their cohabitation. In June, 1857, they
took lodgings in Milton-street, Dorset-square, and
in the following September Mrs. Doyley left her
husband and has not since returned. Her departure
was proved by Charlotte Roberts, the landlady of
the house, who stated, in answer to the learned
judge, that the cause of her leaving was that some
high words passed between her and her husband in
consequence.. of her having stayed out one night
without his knowledge. It was proved that in
March, 1858, Mrs. Doyley was living in lodgings
at Deal with the co-respondent, and that they
passed as man and wife. A brother of Mrs. Doyley
named Edwin Robards was with them.

The jury found that the adultery had been
proved.
His Lordship observed that it was rather a
strange case as it now stood, and when the matter
came before the full Court it would be expedient to
have the petitioner in attendance, and also the
brother of the respondent.

KRETZSCIIMAR V. KRETZSCIIMAR AND RINECKER.

The petitioner, Louis Waldemar Kretzschmar,
prayed for a dissolution of marriage on the ground
of his wife's adultery. The respondent pleaded a
denial of the adultery, connivance, and condonation,
and also alleged that the petitioner had treated her
with cruelty. The co-respondent, Cajetan Rinecker,
pleaded the same pleas as the respondent with regard
to the charge of adultery, and further alleged that
the petitioner, by his conduct and declarations, had
led him to believe that the repondent was not his
lawful wife, and that the petitioner had been guilty

of adultery.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Dr. Spinks were coun-
sel for the petitioner; Mr. J. Simon and Mr. L.
Temple for the respondent ; and Dr. Swabey and
Dr. Tristram for the co-respondent.
The petitioner is a German, and carries on busi•
ness in Duke•street, Bloomsbury, as a working
jeweller. In 1851 he married a Miss Elizabeth
Sharp, the respondent, with whom he lived first at
Howell-street, near the Goswell-road, and after-
wards at Duke-street. The respondent's sister
Susan always lived with them, and at times another
sister, Eliza, was also staying in the house. They
had one child, who was born in 1855. They were
in the habit of receiving lodgers, and in 1855 the
co-respondent, who is a watchmaker, with whom the
petitioner had been acquainted in Germany, took
up his residence with them. In the summer of 1856
the family removed to Hampstead, Rinecker going
with them, and after staying there for about six
weeks went to Dukc-street in August. Mr. Kretz-
schmar afterwards went to Germany, and was
absent about three weeks. Shortly before Christmas,
1857, an expression dropped by one of Mrs.
Kretzschmar's sisters raised a suspicion in his mind

that his wife had formed an improper intimacy
with Rinecker. She solemnly denied that there
was any ground for the imputation, and he was
satisfied. A night or two before Christmas the
family were drinking gin and water together, when
Mrs. Kretzschmar drank out of Rinecker's glass.
Mr. Kretzschmar was angry, and a quarrel took
place when they went up to bed, the result of which
was that Mrs. Kretzschmar went down and asked
for admission to the room occupied by Rinecker
and another ledger named Lutiger. Mrs.
Kretzschmar left the house the same night, and
Rinecker went on the following morning In a
day or two Mrs. Kretzschmar when back to her
husband and remained until the 4th of January,
1857. On that day, during the absence of her
husband, she again left home with her
aunt, Mrs. Pulman. She was persuaded to re-
turn at the end of January, and Mr. Kretzschmar
engaged a housekeeper, Miss Parry. Some corre-
spondenee passed between the parties, and on the
30th of April she once more returned. She did
not, however, remain longer than the 11th of May,
when she finally left. In 1858 Mr. Kretzschmar
discovered that she and the co-respondent were
living together in lodgings at Woodstock-street,
Bond-street, as man and wife.
The principal witness for the petitioner was
Susan Sharp, the respondent's sister, who now
manages the petitioner's house, and is employed by
him in polishing jewellery. She stated that al-
though the petitioner was a passionate man, he was
a kind husband, and never used foul language to or
struck her sister. She admitted, however, that
when she had been preknt at quarrels between her
sister and the petitioner she had had her face
slapped by the petitioner with such violence that
blood flowed from her nose and mouth, and that he
had broken a ruler by, striking it on a table. She
also admitted that since her sister had left the
house she had complained of being beaten by him.
His conduct was described by this witness as very
kind and conciliatory to his wife, especially during
the intervals between her departures from home.
Her evidence was corroborated in this respect by
Miss Parry.
It was not denied on the part of the respondents
that adultery had been committed, but it was con-
tended that the petitioner's conduct had been such
as to disentitle him to the relief he prayed. In
support of this case the other sister, Eliza Sharp,
was called, and stated that the petitioner was in
the habit of using filthy and abusive language to
his wife on little or no provocation, and frequently
struck her, sometimes with his hands: and some-
times with a book, or anything that was near him.
She also stated that Susan, as well as his wife, was
ill-treated and beaten by him. Her evidence was
corroborated by a servant and some other wit-