The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-21 00:00:00

MACDONALD V. MACDONALD.

- -
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Coleridge appeared
for the petitioner.
In this case the wife presented a petition for dis-
solution of her marriage, by reason of her husband's
adultery and desertion. The respondent and many
of the witnesses were residing in Australia. An
application was made to-day to hear the case upon
the introduction of certain affidavits.
Their lordships, however, thought that they
had no authority to receive the affidavits but
only in such a way that the opposite side or the
Court might have an opportunity, if they required
it, of ordering the attendance of the witnesses.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., said that under the circum-
stances he should elect to proceed with the case
with what oral evidence he was able to procure.
The parties were married at Baroda, in the Bombay
Presidency, on the 2d October, 1847, the husband,
Malcolm Macdonald, being a lieutenant in the 22d
Regiment of Native Infantry, and the petitioner a
young lady staying on a visit with Lady Outram.
It was alleged that soon after the marriage Lieut.
Macdonald fell into habits of great extravagance,
and was at length imprisoned for debt. While in
prison he was constantly visited by his wife, who,
contrary to the request of all her friends, refused
to leave him and return to England. On the 15th
February, 1852, however, he sent her to England
for the benefit of her health, and also for the pur-
pose of making arrangements about his debts.
There was an understanding between therm that,
if this arrangement were successful, Lieut. Mac-
donald should go to Australia, and that she should
join him there, but since that time up to the pre-
sent sbe had never received a single sixpence from
him for her maintenance or support. He went to
Australia in that year, having obtained money by
leaving the service, and subsequently a few letters
passed between them, but at last he ceased to write,
and under these circumstances she determined to
go out to Sydney, where she arrived on the
2d October, 1854. No sooner had the vessel cast
anchor, however, than she was met by a messenger
with a letter from her husband upbraiding her for
coming out, and saying he had no affection for her,
and that he was living with another woman.
Through the interference of a Mr. Thomson, who
kept horses at Sydney, and with whom the respon-
dent was in partnership, Mrs. Macdonald was al-
lowed a room to reside in. She soon found her hus-
band treated her with the greatest coldness and in-
sult, and continued his amour with a Miss Hughes,
who had a large fortune, and who was the grand-
daughter of a felon, and therefore Mrs. Macdonald
made up her mind to return to England. (in Dec.
29th following she sailed in the Argo, and had got
as far as Melbourne when she received a letter from
the respondent entreating her to return, expressing
sorrow for what had passed, and promising to amend
his conduct ; she thereupon was induced to go back
to Sydney, forfeiting her passage money, but on
her arrival the lady discovered that nothing could
have disappointed her husband more than her re-
appearance, he having merely written the letter
with some private object, and never expecting her
to attend to it. In this state of things a benevolent
lady, named Ramsay, offered to take her as gover-
ness to her children, and invited the husband to
come and see his wife whenever he liked, but the
respondent never went near the place, and when
his wife called at his lodgings he treated her with
the greatest indifference, and on one occasion a fe-
male form appeared at the window and knocked at
the glass, whereupon Capt. Macdonald said to his
wife, " You see, you only come here to be insulted;
what is the use of coning here ?" The petitioner
subsequently found a letter in his coat pocket,
which proved that he was still carrying on au adul-
terous intercourse with this female, and after March
6, 1855. no interview ever took place between the
husband and wife, although she did not leave Aus-
tralia until December, 1856, when, at the solicita-
tion of her friends, she returned to this country.
Before her departure the respondent left Sydney
with the female in question, and had since been re-
siding with her.
Witnesses having been called in support of the
petition,
The Court pronounced a sentence of divorce.