The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-06 00:00:00

DIVORCE COURT.

BEV. V. BELL AND TIIE MARQUIS OF ANGLESEY.
4 IVrr.. M. Chambers, Q.C., Dr. Deane, Q.C., Mr
Cleasby, and Mr. G. .H. COoper Appeared for the
petitioner • Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. Dixon for
the respondent, and Mr. Edwin James, Q.C, with
Mr. Gordon Allan, for the co-respondent.
This was a petition by James Morton Bell pray-
ing for a dissolution of • his marriage withi Ellen
Jane Bell,•on the ground of her adultery with the
Marquis of Anglesey, and also asking for damages
from the co-respondent. The damages were laid
at £lO,OOO. The respondent and the co-respondent
pleaded a denial of the adultery..
Mr. M. Chambers, in opening the-case, said that
the only object of petitioner in asking for da-
s-mages was to place himself in the same position as
ibefbre his marriage with regard to the money se-
t , cured by him to Mrs. Bell by the settlements exe-
cuted at the time of the marriage.. By the Gist sec-
, tion of the act of last session the Court had power
to deal with marriage settlements in certain cases,
but it was doubtful whether it was authorised by
- that section to interfere with the settlements where,
t..
as in this case, there had been no children of the
s 'marriage. Mr. Bell had, therefore, been advised to
insert iu the petition a claim for damages.
'lt appeared that the marriage took place at Pad-
. diongton, on the 10th of July, 1851 ; Mr. Bell being
a merchant, the son of another merchant of consi-
derable wealth, and the respondent being one' of
the daughters of Mr. Bernan, a wealthy stock-
'. broker. Mr. Ball was 25, and Mrs. Bell, 21 years
of age, and she was described as a-lady of remark-
able beauty. They had a house in Gloucester-ter-
:. raceellycle-park, and as Mr. Bernan resided close
to them in -_•,rasseassquare, there was a great deal of
intercourse between the two families. Mr. Ber-
nan also had a house at Worthing, where Mr.
and Mrs. Bell were accustomed to spend a few
weeks every autumn.. No evidence was given as
as,to the time and circumstances of the Marquis
;-:of Anglesey's introduction to the family, but
it appeared that he used to visit the
Bernans at Worthing with his children, Lord
• Berkeley and Lady Florence Paget,- and that the.
Bernans and the Bells had visited him at Beaude-
p• sert. In Oct., 1858, Mrs. Bell was at Worthing, and
on the 23d of that month, during Mr. Bell's ab-
' ' 'Hence, she left her father's house and went to Lil-
• lyman's Hotel in Lower Brook-street, where she
was ined by her-waiting-maid, Sarah Denseley.
The Marquis of Anglesey visited
,her there every
day.. After remaining for a fortnight she and her
maiftand the Marquis went together to the Calver-
f
ley Hotel at TonbralgeS-wells. Airs. Bell passed by
_ the name of Mrs. Burton, and they occupied one
sitting-room and two bedrooms near each other, and
4.--teok all their meals together. About a fortnight
- afterwards they removed to lodgings in Halfmoon-
street, Piccadilly, where the Marquis and Mrs.
Bell lived as man and wife, Mrs. Bell then taking
74 the name of Lady Anglesey. They remained.there
until. March, when. Mrs. Bell went to the Castle
Hotel, Richmond. A butler named Wicks, who had
been'in Mr. and Mrs, Bella's service, said, in his
• erosseexamination, that they had slight differences
`tit times, but never any serious quarrel, and that
r Mr. Bell used to complain of her seeing too much
company. The attorney of Mr. Bernan, Mr. SesVell,
also said that it turned outto be an ill-assorted mar-
riage, • 'The Marquis of Anglesey was stated to be
- a widower.
67 Mr. Sewell also explained the provisions of the
settlements executed at the marriage, as to which
" it is only necessary to • state that Mr. Bernan
s•
Ratted certain sums to his' daughter, and that Mr.
s 4„ Bell. Settled upon his wife the interest of £5,000' to
her separate use for her life.
is* t Mr. E. James, in addressing the jury in mitiga-
tion of damages, fully acquitted Mr. Bell of any in-
tentienalek" put money.in his own pocket; and said
that he was quite justified in wishing to relieve him-
• Self from the liability for the payment. of the inte-
rest of £5,000 to his wife during the remainder of
her life. Hewas not instructed to make the slighest
. imputation upon the conduct of Mr. Bell, but the
marriage was not a happy one, and there was no
evidence that the Marquis had been guilty of any-
thing like deliberate seduction, so that it would be
,sufficient to award damages which would place Mr,
-1 Bell in the same position with regard to the settle-
inent,as before the marriage.
The Judge-Ordinary, in summing up, said the
only question for the jury was the amount of
damages, and in considering that question, they
.were directed by the statute to be guided by the
same riles as were formerly applicable to actions
against adulterers for trim. con. He never remem-
bered to have heard it suggested. that in actions of
that kind the jury could legitimately take into con-
eideration the provisions of the marriage settle-
ments.
Mr. M. Chambers reminded his lordship that -in
the case of Dr. Lardner the settlements were given
$,4 74. in evidence, and £B,OOO damages awarded in conse-
T, sequence of their provisions.
The Judge-Ordinary said he did not remember
V
: the case, He could understand that the nature of
the settlements might be a topic for an address to
a jury, but he could not see on what prinCiple the
settlements could be given in evidence in an action
against the adulterer. The wife might gamble, 'or
, make clucks and drakes of the money -settled to, her
separate use, and the husband had no control over
her, whether he lived with her or apart from her.
:;" However, after the precedent which the learned
[
counsel had cited, he would not withdraw the settle-
a. merits from the consideration of the jury. In es-
sessinse damages the usual course was to take into
Consideration- tho position- in life of the parties, the
terms on which they had lived together, the .cir-
cumstances' under' 'which the adulterer was intro-
dueed to the husband's family, and, the means he
had of paying damages, asd to make the damages,
as nearly as they could, a cornpensation—although
, it was a miserable thing to talk of money in such a
matter at all—for the loss the husband had ,sus-
tained. If they thought the Marquis had taken
advantage of the prestige attaching. to hiS title and
to his large possessions to induce a handsome' wo-
man, perhaps fond of admiration, to give up her
honour to him, and had thus robbed Mr. Bell of