The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-11 00:00:00

DIVORCE COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Baron Martin,
and the Judge-Ordinary.)
TOLLEMACHE V. TOLLEMACHE.

The Queen's Advocate and Mr. Mundell appeared
for the petitioner; Dr. Deane, Q.C., Mr. J. A. Rus-
sell, and Mr. Kinnear (with them Mr. E. James,
Q.C.), for the respondent.
Mr. Henry Bertie Tollemache prayed for a disso-
lution of his marriage on the ground of his wife's
adultery. He was married at Gretna-green in
August, 1837, to the respondent, then Miss Amelia
Sinclair, the daughter of Sir George and Lady Sin-
clair. He had at that time an allowance of £2OO a
year from his family, and was a lieutenant in the
Fusilier Guards. He sold his commission, and
cohabited with his wife at various places, princi-
pally in Scotland, where her family lived, until
1841. In 1838 a son was born at Rothesay. Mrs.
Tollemache formed an acquaintance with a Major
Power, and in April, 1841, committed adultery
with hibn at the Black Bull Inn, Glasgow. Mr.
Tollemache instituted proceedings in the Court
of Session in Scotland, and in July, 1841,
that Court pronounced a sentence of divorce.
In the following August Mrs. Tollemache married
Major Power, and lived with him until his death
in 1855. She has had three children by him.
The respondent, in her answer, pleaded the Scotch
divorce, and alleged that the petitioner in 1837 ac•
quired a Scotch domicile, and retained it until 1841.
This fact was traversed, and issue was joined yes-
terday before a special jury. Several witnesses were
called, including Miss Sinclair, a sister of the re-
spondent, and Mr. Tollemache, M.P., an uncle of
the petitioner, to prove the various pla-es at which
the petitioner had resided between 1837 and 1841.
It appeared he was accustomed to lead a very wan-
dering life, but the jury ultimately found that there
was no proof that he intended to relinquish his

English domicile, and therefore that he had not ae-
quired a Scotch domicile.

- Witnesses were this Morning called, who proved
that in 1841, previous to the Scotch divorce, the
respondent had committed adultery with Major
Power, at inns in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Their lordships refused to allow Dr. Deane to
cross-examine the witnesses or to address the Court
upon the facts, which the respondent did not deny
in her answer.

It appeared that shortly after the Scotch divorce
Mr. Tollemache came into possession of £B,OOO, in
consequence of the death of a relative. In 1855 he
obtained the opinion of the Queen's Advocate, of
Dr. Addams, and of Mr. Rolt, upon his case ; and
in the following year he presented a petition to the
House of Lords, praying that an act might be passed
declaring that the cotch divorce was valid. The
petition was opposed by, Lord Redesdale, and sup-
ported by Lord Brougham, but in consequence of
Lord Brougham's absence from town, it was not
then presented. In the following year it was again
presented and referred to a select committee, which
reported that they had searched the journals and
found no precedent for the prayer with which it
concluded, and that in their opinion it ought not to
be complied with. The matter then dropped, and no
further step was taken until this court was esta-
blished.

Dr. Deane submitted that the petitioner had been
guilty of unreasonable delay in allowing 14 years,
between 1841 and 1855, to elapse without making
any effort to obtain an English divorce. He was
proceeding to address their lordships on the ques-
tion of the validity of the Scotch divorce, when
The Judge Ordinsry said the Court was not
called upon to reverse the judgment of the Scotch
Court. He had had great difficulty in discovering
in what way this Court would alter the position of
any of the parties by granting a divorce. If the
Scotch divorce was valid, and the children of Major
Power and of the respondent were legitimate, the
sentence of this Court could not make them illegi-
timate.

The Queen's Advocate replied.
Mr. Justice Williams said that, without going
into the question whether the Scotch divorce was
valid as a divorce in reference to any subsequent
marriage in Scotland, and without giving any opi-
nion as to the status of the children of the respon-
dent by Maior Power, the Court thoight that they
could not look upon the Scotch sentence as amount-
ing to a dissolution of the bond of marriage. Then
the petitioner having made out the allegations of
adultery, the question arose whether he had been
guilty of unreasonable delay. The unreasonable
delay mentioned in the Act was something in the
nature of connivance or acquiescence in the adul-
tery. There was no re -.son for imputing delay in
that sense to the petitioner, and the Court would
therefore dissolve the marriage.
(Before a Common Jury.)
CROKER V. CROKER AND MAVINS.

Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey appeared for
the petitioner ; Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr.
Mundell for the respondent.
This was a petition by the Rev. Richard Croker
for a dissolution of marriage, on the ground of his
wife's adultery. She was a Miss Longmore, and
had a fortune £14,000 or £15,000. They were mar-
ried in July, 1841, at Tewkesbury ; they cohabited
at St. Helier's, Jersey, and other places until 1852,
and had five children. At the beginning of 1852
Mr. Croker was appointed chaplain on board
her Majesty's ship Winchester, and in May went
in that vessel to the China Seas. He remained
abroad until March, 1855. He left his wife at
St. Helier's, and during his absence she formed an
adulterous connexion with Mr. C. G. F. Mavins, s
dentist in Jersey. The evidence of witnesses who
had been examined by commission in Jersey was
read to prove that Mrs. Croker and Mr. Mavins
lived on terms of great familiarity there, that thef
had gone together to St. Male, Rennes, and other
places, and that in 1855 she was delivered of a male
child.

Mr. Baron Martin summed up.
The jury found that the fact of adultery had been
established, and

The Court dissolved the marriage with costs
against the co-respondent.