Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page

LONDON CORRESPONDENCE.'

Advertising

DIVORCE CASE. í

News
Cite
Share

DIVORCE CASE. í The case of Hume v. Hume, Nevard, Clare, and King came before the President and a special jury. The co-respondents were not represented by counsel. The petitioner at the first hearing prayed for a divorce on the ground of his wife's infidelity with the co re- spondents while she, in a cross petition, sought a divorce on the ground? of her husband's infidelity and cruelty. The jury fouud that the petitioner had not been guilty of infidelity, that he had been guilty of cruelty, butonly under great provocation, and they could not agree upon the question of the respondent's infi- delity. This verdict being unsatisfactory, they were discharged. The petitioner on ths occasion prayed as before for a divorce, while the respondent prayed for a judicial separation on the ground of cruelty, denying the infidelity. The petitioner and respondent were married in 1862, and lived happily for some time at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Richmond, Surrey, and Upper Norwood. Several children were born of the marriage. It appeared that in about two years the respondent became addicted to intemperance. She was sent to a sanatorium at Leicester, thence to Eastbourne to a doctor's estab- lishment, and finally back to her husband's house at Upper Norwood. As the manage- ment of the petitioner's ha use suffered much in consequence of her conduct, he engaged a Miss Ritchie to superintend it. With her he was charged with infidelity at the last trial. On this occasion, however, the charge was abandoned. Owing to some unpleasant occurrence Miss Ritchie left. The acts of infidelity were sworn to by the co-respondents, a builder, a cabman, and a bricksetter. At the sitting of the Court previous to Mr. McIntyre commencing to address the jury, an arrangement was come to by which the petitioner agreed to allow the respondent J6100 a year, and the jury, by consent, gave a verdict for the petitioner on all issues. The Court then pro- nounced a decree nisi.

[No title]

MR.'GEORGE CRUIKSHANK. 1

[No title]

WAR ITEMS.

LONDON MARKETS.

Advertising

THE WAR.j

PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE.…