The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-02 00:00:00

HALL V. HALL AND WALKER.

This was a suit for a divorce on the ground of
adultery, instituted by Mr. Spencer Hall, against
his wife, Elizabeth Hall. The parties were mar-
ried at Radford, in the county of Nottingham, in
1835. The husband was a lecturer upon scientific
subjects, and occasionally travelled about the
country. They generally lived at Sheffield, and in
1845 circumstances of a suspicious nature having
arisen against Mrs. Hall, there was a dispute,
which resulted in a separation. The wife then
went to reside with her friends at Nottingham, but
she returned to Sheffield in 1848, and opened a
small stationer's shop, being assisted in the busi-
ness by her brother-in-law until 1852, when he
went to Australia. She then became connected
with the co-respondent, and they had lived to-
gether ever since as man and wife. An allowance
of 12s. a-week had been made by Mr. Hall to his
wife on the separation, and she had received it up
to the time she left Nottingham, when he paid her
a sum of money down on condition that she gave
up any further allowance. The adultery was fully
proved.
The Court thought that, from the evidence, the
petitioner was clearly entitled to a dissolution of
the marriage, and it therefore granted the divorce.
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks appeared
for the petitioner.
GIBSON V. GIBSON.
This was an application for a dissolution of the
marriage, on the ground of adultery, coupled with
desertion, presented by Ann Gibson against James
Gibson.
The marriage took place at St. Peter's, Notting-
ham, in March, 1842, the husband then being a
grocer and druggist. They cohabited at various
places until 1851, when the respondent went away
to America, but subsequently returned, and in
1854 Mrs. Gibson was living with her sister, near
Darlington, and her husband with his mother, in
the neighbourhood, and he occasionally came to see
his wife, but in July in that year, after a dispute,
he again went away, and she had only seen him
once since that period, when he called in a state of
intoxication at the house where she was staying.
It was shown, however, in evidence that when the
parties were living apart, Mrs. Gibson declined to
live with him unless he gave up his gambling and
drinking habits. With regard to the adultery, the
brother of the petitioner deposed that he had called
at a house in Lambeth, where he saw the re-
spondent, who admitted he was living with a fe-
male, and had been for the last five years, and said
that he had washed his hands of his wife, and she
could easily prove desertion against him.
After some further discussion,
Their lordships said they would take time to con-
sider their decision.
TO3IKIN v. TOMEIN AND DRAGE,
This was a suit for a dissolution of marriage by
Rev. J. W. Tomkin, of Layham, near Had-
leign, in Suffolk, by reason of his wife's adultery.
The parties were married in February, 1854, the
respondent being the widow of an officer named
Sugden. The adultery was alleged to have
taken place between May and July, 1856, at St.
Helier s, Jersey, with Mr. Drage, who had been an
officer in her Majesty's 85th Regiment—pleaded a
decree of divorce a mensa et thoro, granted on the
sth of May, 1857, and also a judgment for £l,OOO
damages in an action for criminal conversation.
Since these proceedings it was proved that the re-
spondent and co-respondent had been living to-
gether as man and wife, at 34, Argyle•square,
where they were served with a copy of the citation.
Their lordships had recommended the evidence to
be taken by affidavit.
eared for the
Drs. Addams and Swabey app
petitioner. , ,
Their loribbips said that they back airtati7 the