The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-21 00:00:00

LA TV INTEL

THIS DAY.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Lord Campbell, Lord Chief Baron Pollock, and
Sir Cresswell Cresswell.)
GRAHAM V. GRAHAM AND MILLER.
This was a petition by the husband for divorce against
his wife, for adultery. Dr. Waddilove appeared for the
petitioner.
It appeared that the litigant parties were married in
August, 1848. Two children were born of the marriage.
They did not live happily together, and she went to live
with her mother in 1851. In January, 1852, the adultery
was committed with the co-respondent, a captain in the
royal navy; and she is still living with him as his mistress.
On the 10th of June, 1858, she was living at 16, Portland-
terrace, St. John's-wood.
Susan Vauxon was called and examined as a witness—
She said she made dresses for Mrs. Braham. Saw her
living with Miller, and informed Mr. Braham of it. He
had been informed previously, but did not show any
symptoms of affliction on the subject. He said 'he would
have a divorce. Hannah Greatrix, domestic servant, lived
at 16, Portland-terrace, St. John's-wood. The respondent
and co-respondent passed as husband and wife, under the
name of Mr.: and Mrs. Miller. INo correspondence was
kept up between the petitioner and respondents. She'was
there on the 20th December, 1857, as their servant. They
occupied the same bed together. She did not know when
that intercourse began.
This was the petitioner's case.
Their Lordships then consulted together upon the evi-
dence.

Lord Campbell said the court were of opinion that the
petitioner should attend and be examined.
The petitioner was then sworn and examined. He was
married to the respondent in 1848. He w9.s a merchant
My wife went out one evening, and she remained out very.
lats. I asked her where she had been, and she said she
was at Miss Barnes', and she told me she had
been there, and when I came back we quarrelled
and she went to live with her mother. I saw her walking
in the streets with gentlemen. I heard she was living with
the co-respondent, Miller. Her brother told me she was
living with some gentleman in St. John's-wood. I went to
the house and asked the name of the gentleman, and saw
her at the window. I asked a noble lord (Brougham) the
expense of an Act of Parliament for a divorce. I took no
further steps of procedure against her. I resolved to have a
divorce as soon as possible. On the 18th February, 1858,
I took proceedings.
Lord Campbell said, upon this evidence, the petitioner
was entitled to a decree of divorce.
Their lordships declined to make any qrder as to costs,
reserving to the petitioner his right of action for damages.
OLIVER V. OLIVER.

This was a petition by the wife for divorce against the
husband for adultery with a person of the name of Jane
Carman. They were married on the 22d of January, 1850,
and went to live at Croydon. He was a hairdresser. He
afterwards lived with Jane Carman, at Chelsea.
Mary Ann Aitkinson, mother of the petitioner, proved
the marriage and separation about a fortnight afterwards.
He said he had married her out of revenge to another
party, but did not want to live with her. She wanted her
to get married to another as soon as possible. He made
her no allowance. She took her home. He left Croydon
in March. She found him living at Knightsbridge with
a person named Edgecombe. He was summoned
before the police magistrate at Lambeth, and was
sent, for one month to prison for desertion. Her
daughter was confined in the workhouse and had
a child in October. She lived with me till April.
I saw him two months after and Carman with him. He
paid her a small allowance for the child, whichis now dead.
Her daughter went to service, and the parish officers said
thcy could do nothing for her unless she went into the
workhouse. He has done nothing for her these six years.
E. Edgecombe, hair. dressei said, that in 1850 the respon-
dent came to his employment at Knightsbridge. He lived
as a married man two or three cottages off. He was a
tenant of his. He called her his wife. It was not the pe-
titioner. There was a child with him. He went
to live at Chelsea. He was imprisoned a month for deser-
tion. The same woman is still living with hini.
Mrs. Hannah Phips, Knightsbridge, said that the same
woman that lived with him in 1850 was still living with him.
Lord Campbell said—On the evidence produced the peti-
tioner was clearly entitled to a decree of divorce against the
husband (respondent). It appeared he had no intention to
live with her, and the adultery was clearly proved.
Divorce decreed,

HURST V. HURST AND PARKER.
This was a petition by the husband against the wife for
divorce, for adultery with the co-respondent, William
Parker. They were married the 27th September, 1847.
Mrs. Jane Hurst proved the marriage. Harriet Irving
saw the respondent, Mrs. Irving, in bed with the co-respon-
dent, William Parke; during the day in her sister's house.
It was nut a joke, she saw it was in earnest. She left her
husband after that. In 1855 they wore living in the same
house, her sister's, and they were then living together.
They went to live in Thames-street. She was still living
with him. She lived also with one Clint. She saw the
petitioner, and had several communications on the subjected
his wife's conduct.

Mary Ann Steven accompanied last witness to Mrs.
Burst's hawse, Liquorpond-street, in 1854, and saw the re-
spondent and co-respondent living together. In 1855 she
srkv them in bed together, undressed, between two and three
o'clock in the afternoon. She got her living by sewing and
dressmaking.

Lord Campbell said the marriage and adultery had been
clearly proved, and the petitioner was entitled to a decree
of dissolution of the marriage.
Divorce decreed.