Stockton Herald, South Durham and Cleveland Advertiser. — 1886-11-06 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

YORKSHIRE DIVORCE SUIT.  EXTRAORDINARY DISCLOSURES. In the Probate and Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice on Thursday the case of Brown v. Brown came before Sir James Hannen. It was a petition presented by the wife, a blanket weaver, for the dissolution of her marriage, on the ground of the adultery and cruelty of the respondent, her husband, John Herbert Brown, a collier.—Mr Green, who appeared for the petitioner, said in the early part of the year 1884 she was residing at Thornhill with her parents, and the respondent lodging at the house of her sister, Mrs Summerscales, at Barnsley. After a short time the petitioner became acquainted with the respondent, and she eventually married him in June, 1884, at Thornhill Parish Church. Very shortly afterwards, however, the respondent gave way to habits of intoxication, and in August he assaulted the petitioner, and was sent to prison by the Magistrates in default of the payment of the fine that had been inflicted on him. In the September following that event the respondent deserted the petitioner, she returning to her parents at Thornhill. After living some time apart the parties became reconciled, and the petitioner supported the respondent, he leading a comparatively idle life. In the month of June last year the respondent was arrested for felony, and being convicted at Leeds Assizes, was sent to prison for three months. After this ;the petitioner objected to have anything more to do with the respondent, and he, to show he resented the determination of the petitioner, persecuted her in every way, and threatened to ' murder her if she did, not return to cohabitation with him. This she declined to do, and the respondent went to Batley and obtained employment at a colliery as a pitman. Here, however, he thought he had a "call" to evangelisation, and conducted religions services in the neighbourhood, which greatly aggravated the adultery charged, as under the cloak of piety he seduced a young woman named Wilson, promising her marriage, and at the same time he represented that he should come into the possession of a sum of money amounting to over £3oo.—Mrs Brown, the petitioner, was then called. She bore out the statement of the learned counsel with respect to the marriage with the respondent, and also his gross conduct afterwards.—Mary Elizabeth Wilson said she was a cloth weaver at Peel-street, Batley, In December, 1885, the respondent was lodging with her mother, and conducted evangelistic services in the neighbourhood. Shortly before last Christmas she met the respondent in Theatre-lane, Dewsbury, where he asked her to go to the Cooperative Hall to hear "The Messiah," and the following day she took a walk with him. On the Christmas Day following they were at a chapel tea party, at which the respondent delivered an address, and on the way home, after getting her to consent to become hie wife, he seduced her. At the time he asked her to accept him as her future husband he represented himself as an unmarried man.—Mr Evans, the solicitor for the petitioner, proved the conviction of the respondent for assault before the Magistrates.—His lordship pronounced a decree aisi with costs.