The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-19 00:00:00

LAW LATIELLIGENCE.-April 18.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)

DRUMMOND, COMMONLY CALLED VISCOUNTESS FORTH, V.
DRUMMOND, CALLED VISCOUNT FORTH.

This was the peiition of the wife, praying for a
dissolution of the marriage on the ground of her
husband's adultery and cruelty, to which the re-
spondent did not answer.
It appeared, however, that the Queen's Proctor
deemed it advisable to intervene, as there were
grounds for suspecting that there might be collu-
sion between the parties.
Mr. Macaulay and Mr. Marshman were counsel
for the petitioner; and the Attorney-General, Mr.
Sergeant Pigott, and Dr. Spinks, in support of the
plea of collusion.
Mr. Marsham opened the pleadings, from which
it appeared that the petition was filed in 1860, and
it was on the record alleged that the petitioner had
been guilty of adultery subsequently, and that she
had been living in a state of adultery in different
parts of the metropolis and the United States.
Mr. Macaulay contended that the Queen's Proctor
was not justified in alleging this misconduct, and
should have limited his allegation to the charge of
collusion.

Sir C. Cresswell stated that the Queen's Proctor
had acted under the instruction of the Court.

Mr. Macaulay then stated that he was not in a
position to prove the adultery of the respondent,
and therefore the petition must be confined to a
prayer for judicial separation. Under these circum-
stances he submitted that the collusion could not be
pleaded according to the section of the act of last
session, by which such plea was confined to peti-
tions for judicial separation. He stated also that
the petitioner traversed the plea ou tho part of the
Crown law officer, and was perfectly prepared to
contest the question with the Queen's Proctor.
Sir C. Cresswell said that he did not consider
that he could interfere at that stage of the case,
which must proceed. He would make his decree,
which could be appealed against.
Mr. Macaulay then stated the case. The respon-
dant was the son of the Earl of Perth, and the peti-
tioner, whose maiden name was Capel, was highly
connected through both her parents. The marriage
was solemnised in 1855, at St. Peter's, Pimlico,
and they continued to cohabit until the latter end
of 1858, when his conduct became so violent that
Lady Forth was obliged to separate from him.
From the time of the marriage until the separation
Lord Forth continued the ill-treatment to Lady
Forth, and also behaved with cruelty to the child,
and violence towards her sister and other members
of her family. They resided with her father and
mother after the marriage, Lord Forth not having
an establishment of his own, and it was during the
absence of the former that the alleged acts of vio-
lence were committed. The conduct of Lord Forth
was to be attributed, in all probability, to his in-
temperate habits, for some of the acts were of a
nature that could not be referred to any other
cause, and amongst those acts was a threat that he
would contract a loathsome disease and communi-
cate it to the child of which Lady Forth was then
pregnant.

Mrs. Charlotte Mary Ce.pel, examined by Mr.
Macaulay. She said she was the mother of the
petitioner, and that she was present at the marriage
in 1855.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Pigott—Her
daughter lodged at the house of a Mr. Clark, at 70,
Park-street, Grosvenor-square, in October last. She
went with Lady Forth to take the lodgings, and
the latter did not say that they were for a Mr. and
Mrs. Dearing. She did not believe that Mrs. Clark
asked her for any reference. She could not say
whether the lodgings were taken for Lady Forth
alone, or for her and somebody else, and she would
not swear to that matter. Mrs. Clark might have
asked her who she was, but she did not recollect
her having done so. Perhaps Lady Forth did. call
herself Mrs. Dearing. She did not call herself Lady
Forth, that she could answer for. She (witness)
did not give any name. She did not give the name
of Edwards, at least she did not recollect her having
done so. She visited Lady Forth at these lodgings,
and found a gentleman with her sometimes. She
declined to give his name.
Sir C. Cresswell informed witness that she must
answer this question.
Mrs. Capel—lt was Mr. Dearing. She believed
he took his meals there, and on some occasions she
was present when he did so. She never slept at
these lodgings, but she sometimes remained till
nine o'clock at night, and she left Mr. Dearing
there. Lady Forth used to breakfast at one o'clock,
and she saw Mr. Dearing breakfasting with her.
Sir C. Cresswell—Did you hear from your
daughter that she was living there?
Mrs. Capel—l should say I did.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott proceeded to examine the.
witness to show that the same degree of intimacy
subsisted between Lady Forth and Mr. Dearing
in other lodgings, but the learned judge considered
that after what the witness had already. deposed it
was unnecessary to pursue the examination further
in order to establish the plea of adultery against the
petitioner.
The lady then stated, in reply to Sergeant
Pigott, that Lady Forth went to America in the
spring of 1860, but the petition had been filed four
months previously.
By Mr. Macaulay—Lord Forth left her daugh-
ter at the end of 1858. Except for short intervals,
they lived with her after the marriage, as Earl
Perth gave them very little. Mr. Dearing was in-
troduced to her at Dieppe, and afterwards called
on the family as an ordinary visitor. Before Lady
Forth went to America she was not satisfied. There
was no improper intimacy between her and Mr.
Dearing.
Lady Forth, who is a young lady of very fashion-
able and prepossessing appearance and manner,
was examined by Mr. Macaulay at considerable
length. She stated that she lived with Lord Forth
until about two years and four months ago. After
the marriage they went to Brussels, where they
remained about a month, and after their return
they went to live at her father's. Lord Forth
was scarcely ever sober, and was in the habit of
using language to her that was too frightful to
be repeated. Before they went to Brussels,
and in three days after the ma criage, he pro-
posed that should start for Brussels, to which
she objected, saying that
,he could not go without
means. They were in a brougham at the time, and
he got out and desired her to go to a very bad place.
At Brussels his conduct vas most cruel to her.

They returned one night from the theatre, and Lord
Forth was very drunk. She wanted him to go to
bed, and he aimed a blow at her Which missed her,
but was so violent as to break a marble slab which
he struck. She was enciente at the time. During
the whole time they were living together she was
not able to go to church more than three times, as
he would not allow her out of his sight. When she
was reading the Bible at home he used to snatch it
out.of her hands. In September, 1856, he used the
most abusive language towards her, and was in the
habit of getting into the greatest passions if al2r
thing occurred to displease him. While she was
pregnant he called her by some foul and blasph.,e'
mous name, and threatened to murder her. He
threatened also to blind her after the child W9O
born, and then to send her to an improper house:
The witness then proceeded to detail other acts of
violence, such as dragging her out of her mothers
bed, almost strangling her, and this conduct con-
tinued without intermission until their separation:
After that event Lord Forth wanted to be reconciled
to her, and she had an interview with him, but re-
fused to resume cohabitation with him. He then
said that he would do all in his power to blacken
her character. She deposed also to acts of violence,
towards the child, her sister, and other members 01
her family.
In reply to Sergeant Pigott, she said that she ha
no separate property from her husband.
Mrs. Capel was recalled, and corroborated several
portions of Lady Forth's evidence, which closed the
case for the petitioner.
Sir C. Cresswell directed the case to stand over
for argument on the legal point as to whether be
was justified in granting a separation when the fact
of adultery on the part of the petitioner had been
established. He intimated his opinion that the
acts on the part of the respondent proved the alle-
gation of cruelty.

WIDNELL V. WIDNELL.
This was the petition of the wife, praying for
dissolution of marriage with her husband, by rea-
son of his adultery and desertion for two years
without reasonable cause.
Dr. SVambey appeared for the petitioner, and the
respondent was not represented by counsel.
The parties were married in 1832, and cohabited
in London till 1845, when the respondent went to
a situation at a hosier's in Birmingham. The pets'
tioner supported herself and child by her own in'
dustry, and though the respondent returned to
London in 1846 and set up in business in Newing'
ton Butts, he refused to live with her. He had:in'
terviews with the daughter, the only issue of the
marriage, but frankly admitted to the petitioner
that he did not intend to live with her again'
Ultimately he formed an adulterous intercourse
with a female, with whom he was at present living*
The facts were proved, and the Court granted the
_decree nisi, with costs against the respondent.