The Pontypridd District Herald and Rhondda Valley, Llantrisant, Caerphilly, and Mountain Ash News. — 1894-06-16 (Pontypridd, Mid Glamorgan, Wales)

HEAVY DAMAGES IN A DIVORCE  CASE.  In the Divorce Division, London, Sir Francis Jenne and a special jury had before them the case of Sulivan v. Sulivan and Norton. . The petition was that of Mr. Walter Sandy. Sulivan, a coffee planter in the province of Coorg, India, for a divorce by reason of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, Mr. Bardley John Norton, a barrister in practice at Madras, against whom damages were claimed. Answers were filed denying the charge.—Mr. Lockwood, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Searle), who appeared for the petitioner, said that so far as the question of damages was concerned, the sum of 0,000 had been agreed upon, subject to the sanction of the Court. Mr. &liven did not wish to benefit by one halfpenny in regard to this amount, which would be settled upon the respondent. The marriage took place on the 10th of August, 1898, at St. Bernabits' Church, Kensington, the respondent's maiden name being Fellowes. Mr. and Mrs. Sulivan lived some time in this country and afterwards went to India. There was one child of the marriage. At the end of 1892 the respondent made the acquaintance of the co-respondent, when she was on a visit to her brother at Hyderabad. Later on the petitioner took his wife to Madras to consult a dentist, pre. viously to which he agreed to stay at the house of the no-respondent, who was living with his mother. Mr. Norton was a married man, but at that time his wife was in England. After their return from the visit the petitioner noticed • change in his wife's manner towards him, and he suggested that she should go on a voyage to England, and it was arranged that she should share the cabin of Mr. Norton's mother, who was also going there. He accompanied his wife to Bombay to see her off, and found there Mr. Norton, who, on the day the vessel sailed, announced that he was going to accompany his mother to England. The respondent wrote the petitioner letters of the most sffeotionate character, but later on she addressed a oommunioation to him from Russell-road, Kenaington, in which she said that she did not love him, and could not help it. He Immediately came to this oonntry, and ascertained that his wife was living with the co-respondent, and he accordingly instructed his solicitor to Institute this suit. Mr. Norton and Mrs. &liven returned to India, and on the 15th of September, 1893, she wrote to her husband, urging him, "as the only act of mercy to yourself and me, to set me free. You will find some one worthier than I was, and years of happiness may be before you when you have forgotten me." At the same time the co-respondent wr -to to him, stating that he and the respondent were determined to link their lives together. Mr. Sulivan, hearing that the co-respondent was a candidate for the Legislative Counoil, considered it a public scandal. There was a procedure in India by which persons living in open adultery might be brought before a tribunal and summarily dealt with by way of punishment or fine, and Mr. Sulivan availed himself of it. He, however, subsequently withdrew the summons against the co•respondent, as it was pointed out to him that it might be the means of making his wit. homeless and friendless, and that she might commit suicide if this were not done ; further, he did so as Mr. Norton had agreed to marry her when he was divorced from his wife and when the respondent was di7oroed from the petitioner, and agreed to withdraw his candidature for the Legislative Council, and never to accept any professional work at Coorg.—The petitioner having been examine 1, and other evidence given, the jury found for the petitioner, and assessed the damages at £3,000.— His lordship granted a decree nisi, with costs, and custody of the child, and directed the damages to be paid into court.