Denton and Haughton Examiner, etc. — 1880-01-31 (Denton, Greater Manchester, England)

YORKSHIRE DIVORCE CASE. EXTRAORDINARY VERDICT.  In the Divorce Division on Saturday Sir James Hannen end a Common ,ury had before them the suit of Shillito v Shinn° and Hirst. The petition was that of the husband. a wirerrorker in a good position at Halifax, for the dissolution of the marriage by reason of the infidelity of hie wife with the corespondent, against whom lie claimed damages. The parties belonged to Park Chapel. Halifax. and thedeacons of that place had had the matter in question before them and had called Upon the respondent and corespondent—one of the deacons—to resign their tents in consequence of the scandal occasioned. Answers were fillid by the respondent and corespondent denying the charge. Mr Indere/let, Q C., and Mr. Searle were counsel for the petitioner'. Mr. Kemp, Q.C., and Mr. Clark appeared for the respondent ; and Dr. Spinks. Q C and Mr. Hayford were for the corespondent The petitioner WAS n widower, with One children. Ile nowle the acquaintance of Charlotte Jager, the sister of the corespondent's wife, and after a short courtship he proposed to her. They left Halifax for London, where tliey proposed to get married, and before the ceremony look place the petitioner re• mired a letter from Mr Hirst, in which lie stated that the respondent was of had character, and had been improperly intimate with him. The petitioner showed this letter to the respondent, and upon re• eeiving a satisfactory expiscalion he got married to her Upon their return to Halifax, Mr Hirst wrote a number of letters to the pensioner, in which lie pane delatied accounts of this alleged intimacy. Subsequently Mrs Shillito, Mrs. Hirst, and Mr. Hirst met at a neighbour's house, and it was stated that a reenncilation took place between them. After this, Recording to the evidence, the corespondent was in the intuit of calling at the house of Mr. Shilfito when be wan absent on business, and he was there at times and on occamons which led to the inference that there had been undue intimacy between them since the marriage. For the defence, Mrs. SWIM" staled flint when the petition was filed Ole attempted to commit suicide, and that Olin was suffering so much front tile intones she received that she could not rot so her voice above a whisper. Accordingly her solicitor stood beside her in the witness box, and acted an her interpreter, repeating her answers to the questions pnt by counsel, She looked very ill. nod was evidently suffering from great apemen of mind. She gave a total denial to the chlrge Dr Ainly. medical practitioner at Halifax, anti that the corespondent had had several operations p. rimmed upon Inn; for cancer in the eke. He had, in consequence, become yeeyish, melancholy, and  , morose. There was insanity in the family. the co respondent, Mr. Bast, a wringing machine manufacturer, of Halifax, denied that since the marriage he had been unduly familiar with his wife's sister. Mrs. !last, the wife of the co-respondent, who was called at the request of the learned Judge, said that upon the marriage of the petitioner, her husband admitted Ilia guilt. and she forgave him, as she did not omit any scandal to arise Sir James Bennett, in summing up, raid as far as Mr. Ilirses evidence was to be treated as relevant, the jury would reject it as utterly worthless, because he was either a perjurer. or lie was, without exception, the most malignant lineller that had ever been brought to hie (Sir Janies I.lann.-n's) knowledge. To use the words of Mr. Shillito, if I lirst were .• a demon from hell he could not have oiled ma worse manner. But he might be an lago, mil they must not assume that his charges were Iran. In regard to the question of damages, if ever there was a case in which the claim should be put ',ward this was one, and he thought, if they found for the petitioner, a substantial now should be warded ton the rillany this man had practised. The inry rehred to consider their verdict, and, after being absent an hour, Mond that it had not been proved that the respondent bad committed adultery with the co-respondent, but that the co-respondent had corn. mated adultery with the respondent, and they .issessed the damages at £l,