Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

South Wales Daily News

The copyright status or ownership of this resource is unknown.
Hide Articles List

4 articles on this Page

Advertising

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

.J A CARMARTHEN DIVORCE CASE.'

News
Cite
Share

.J A CARMARTHEN DIVORCE CASE. In the court for the trial of matnmonitd causes ou I Saturday, Sh' James Hannan and a special jury had before them the case of "Jones v. Jones and LeA is," which was the petition of the husbpnd for a dissolution of his maiilage on the gromd of his wife's adultery v. Ith co-respondent. The respondent and the co respondent answered, denying the adultery, and the respondent charged her husband with cruelty. Sergeant Pany, Mr F. A. Inderwic' Q.C., and Mr R. A. Bay ford were counsel for Û¡r; petitioner Dr Spines, Q.C., and Mr R. Searle were for the respondent; and Dr Spinka, Q.C., and Mr George Browne, Recorder of Ludlow, for the co-respondent. MrJBa?ford having opened the proct;ec'?n?s. Sergeant Parry addressed the juiy. He sta.t<:d th?t the petitioner was the son of a chemist and druggist "i a considerable way of business at Carmarthen, and at the time of his marriage be was with his father as assistant. The co-respondent was formfrly Mayor of Carmarthen, when he was a timber merchant, but since the institution of the present suit the leaned counsel believed he had failed, and was now tie cal)ta,-i of a merchantman. The petitK.uer was married to Miss Vaughan on the 13th of June, 18G7, at St Peter's, and the lady belonged to a highly respectable family, her father being Colonel Vaughan, who WM well known and respected. After the marriage, the parties resided in Lammas-street, near the business of Mr Jones, sen., and the petitioner was constantly at the business, and stayed late on a Satur- day evening. The co-resoondent was a. m"rr;l Tn"" between 30 and 40 years of age, and had several children, but for some time he did not Jive "ith his wife, though as to the reason of it the jury, in the present case, had no business to inquire. Mr Jones and his wife lived com- fortably together until the end of 1871, and then the peti- tioner noticed a disposition on the part of his wife to seek the society of the co-respondent, John Lewis. His attention was drawn to it, and he forbaded his wife to receive the co-respondent;but as worl 'd be shown bhe continued to do so. In spite of this interdiction.she continued the intimacy and this went on until Aprd, 1S74, when there was a nna! separation between the parties, and at that time the petitioner was unaware ot all the circumstances of the case, and he signed an agreement offering to take his wife back at the end of six months if nothing further transpired, and if, after the nrst blush, her conduct did not appear so bad. As to the charge of cruelty, there might have been angry words, but they were occasioned by the intimacy between the respondent and the co- respondent. The learned counsel went on to say that Mrs Jones and Mr Lewis often met clandestinely, and were seen in nelds together, under circumstances that pointed to guilt. At Llanstefan, a sea-side place, they were seen to come out of a cave together, and from what was observed there was but little doubt as to the adultery. She went to the co-respondent's place, and in doing so made a detour. The following evidence was given. Charles William Jones said that he was an assistant to his father, a chemist, at Carmarthen. He was married to a daughter of Colonel Vaughan, who was at the time 21 years of age, whilst witness wae 29. He was on good terms with CoL Vaughan till he died. His father's busi- ness was in Lammas-street.and he resided about 150 yards from it. Witness went to the shop at from 9 a.m. to 10, and returned to dinner at 1.30, and returned in an hour. At 5.30 he went to tea, and returned in an hour, and iioally left &t eight o'clock except on Saturdays, when he stayed until 10 p.m. CoL Vaughan died in October, J 871, and witness was his executor. Witness knew the co-respondent, who was known as "Jolly Lewis, the timber merchant." He was married, and was about 42 years of age. Mr Lewis lived at Wauniago, about a furlong out of the town. It was a house situate on its own ground. The nearest way to it would be from L&mmas.atreet, through Picton terrace, and then there was a carnage drive up to the house. Witness knew Lewis, but not as a Mend, and he only took tea at his house one evening, and that was on Whit Monday, 1869 or 1870. About the end of 1871, after the death of Colonel Vaughan, .he first had occasion to speak to his wife about the co- respondent. Lewis had been at the house, as had Mr and Mrs Warren. Witness went to see the latter out, and he heard a shriek from the dining room. After they left he asked his wife the reason of it. At nrst she did not answer, but subsequently said that it was because Lewis squeezed her hand so much." After the occurrence witness said he was never to come to the house again. There was a deal of whistling near his house for months; he endeavoured to ascertain the cause, and when he did so he told her that he found out, and it was Lewis. She said "Yes, I told him to do it so that I may know the time he is going home." His wife was in the habit of gcing into the servant's room and looking out into the street, and when he corn plained of it, she said that her eyes were her own, and that she should do as she liked with them. After this he went home one evening and found the complainant there. Before he went in he heard his wife say, Make some excuse." He had been home to tea, and on that very evening bad told his wife that Lewis should never enter the house again. His wife wanted to go out, and he tried to dissuade her, but in the end she and Lewis went out together. When she returned home there was a row, and witness said that if he caught Lewis there again he should turn her in the streets after him. Mr Lewis was never a friend to witness. Remembered in March 1872 Mrs Jones coming home rather late. She made no statement where she had been to. It was between 9.30 and 10 o'clock. He thought she looked fatigued and tired. She got some hot water and went upstairs. He followed her, and she blew out the candle. He carried her out of the room and locked the door, and having Ht a candle, discovered that she had been washing her boots, which were very dirty. For explanation of the circumstance she told him that she had been out walking, and had got her boots very muddy. From time to time he got some anonymous letters with regard to Mr Lewis and his wife. He always showed them to the respondent, because he did not believe the statements which were contained in them. One of the letters contained very foul language about Mr Lewis. In November, 1872, his wife had a mis- carriage, and in January, 1868, there was a still-born child and upon both these occasions her mother and sister were present. In July, 1873, a letter, beginning "Dear Fany," came to the shop. It came by post, and witness opened it. His wife took the letter away. It said, Dear, dear Fanny, meet me where you did last time, and we can make an appointment for to-night." He taxed his wife with the fletter, and said that it came for Lewis, and pointed to the word "where," which was spelt "ware." It was well known that the co respondent was a bad speller (laughter). His wife said, Dear me, it comes from the same place as all the others, "and added that she knew nothing about it, and that the letter was written for the purpose of annoying him. In the month of Apri), 1874, he had a communication from his father in reference to a statement made by some boys. He at once went and told his wife that she had been seen in the Pot House on the Saturday. She denied it at nrst, but on the Monday acknowledged that it was true. On the Monday it was a common subject in the town, and the respondent admitted that she had been there. The Pot House was a kind of timber yard by the river, and was frequented in the daytime; but he accused his wife of being there between nine and ten o'clock at night. Near the Pot House was a dwelling-house which, at the time in question, was not occupied. When his wife admitted being with Lewis in the Pot House she said that she went to see him to clear her character. Afterwards she said that the letter had come from Lewis, and that witness was right the whole time. He then asked her if she had been to Wauniago, and she said that sha had in August, when Mrs Lewis was away, and that if witness had been a little earlier he would have met them coming out. Witness added, "I have also heard that you have been to the five nelds with him," and she admitted that such was the case, and said that they had to remain under. the hedge owing to the ram. After hearing these statements, it was arranged that she should leave to the house and stay at her mothers_ ?*?'.?. spondent asked for a paper stating ''?. could come back in six months' time? ?? said there was no necessity for "? nnthin<? however, did give a paper, stating that "? further transpired, and her conduct did not ??? as it appeared at the nrst blush he would ????"' six months. After the separation he h?rd other matters, and placed the case in the hands of ?J??"? was ne unhappiness untU Lewis app?edon?be?? 4jrosa-examiLueu L)y ur. DPJL. nt ??t ? were happy, though he felt disappointed it not having children, and this was a subject they both spoke on. Re did not remember calling her a ??°——' ?pugh he might have said that she had ??'? ? his father would marry again. When?? she did not take care of herself, and he asked her to do so. They often talked about not having children He often took his wife out to concerts and a circus. She did not complain of his attending some reading rooms. He might have said that his hopes were blighted because she had no children, aa his father might marry again, tie had said that ahe wished she was dead, and something was said about having a divorce. There were such high words always upon both sides, but she always bad the best of it. (Laughter.) Had tried all he could to be on friendly terms but was much annoyed at the intimacy which ex- isted between the co-respondent and his wife. Had not said that he wanted a divorce, but admitted that he would marry again if he obtained a decree. Her father died in October, 1871, and shortly afterwards he gave her a slight push as she wm getting out of bed, and told her to sleep with the servant; but he did not hurt her enough to cause a bruise on her leg. Had taken his meals separately, because he could not get any peace with her. When his wife had a miscarriage he certainly went into her room and locked the door, but denied spea.ing ha.'shly t,) h,r. Pemembered holding the tongs in his hand, and said that many a man ?uld strike her if he had been provoked like he was. -?i?? -isaJous disposition, aun naturaHy s.j. His wife had a brother, but had no reco?ection of his ob- jectmg to hi.s wife kissing him. She was a wonnn whe would make anybody jealous. She was a very attractive woma.n, and was a great favourite with most people. He had said that if he had been a stranger and saw her, he woutd fall m love with her; but did not remember say' ing that anybody coming to the town would take her for a bad character. L.new that Mr Lewis had known his wife for many years. She was kept in the nursery till she was 15. (Laughter.) Witness wasanomcerinthe same volunteer regiment as the co-respondent, and had been home to his house. His wife had four sisters at home, but now one—Minnie—was dead. Mrs Vaughan lived at Church-parade, and his wife visited her every day, sometimes of an evening. Her family had stayed at his house from time to time. The windows of the bar- racks did not overlook the place where his wife was charged with having committed adultery. Each neld was divided by hedges; some of the hedges were very high. The spot much frequented in the summer time. but not at other seasons of the year. When he commenced this suit he hid ]itt!e information. His father had been active in this matter, and supplied the money The Pot House was & timber yard with a yard through it, and the respondent there met the co-respondent late at night. She stated that she would give no information to crim'nate John Lewis. It was rather a favourite amusement at Carmar- then to send anonymous letters. (Laughter.) -u n ijr ueane, '-l.)., wno appearea tor me cu-responaent, said he desired to ask the petitioner a few questions. Cross- examination continued He knew that the respondent was an old friend of the co-reapondent. Had never spoken to Mr Lewis on the subject of the intimacy, for he had as little to do with him as possible. On the occasion when he found Lewis in the house he did not turn him out, be- cause he was too big a man. (Laughter.) Had never spoken to Lewis about his visits, but had complained to his wife. He never suspected the intimacy that existed between the co-respondent and his wife. If he had not written to Lewis about the matter, Lewis might have told the contents of the letter to everybody be met. Re-examined: Mr Lewis made no excuse for his being at the house on the occasion referred to, but some day afterwards his wife told him that Mr Lewis wanted to borrow an army list. Did not have disputes with his wife until he discovered that she was on terms of intimacy with the co-respondent. She did not take care of herself when she was pregnant he was veiy anxious to have a child. Had said to her that he wished she would do something in order that he might get a divorce. Afber the passionate words they always made it up. There was no reason for saying that during the confinement he treat d his wife with unkind- ness. He never left the hou e for a fortnight, and was with her day and night, and, though the business was only 150 yards off, he did not go to it. After she got better he took her for three weeks to Teuby. He had taken his wife to concerts and the circus, and he never objected to her having amusement; but he did object to her going out by herself at night and meeting Johnny Lewis. He nrst told his father about his misery and un- happiness in March, 1874, and before that he had kept it from his friends. After his wife left he received some letters from her. Some of these were rc id, and the first was dated the day she left the house, and commenced Dear Charles," and asked him to take her back. At the time he did not believe his wife guilty, but many things had since come to his knowledge. Benjamin Lewis, draper's assistant at Carmarthen, in 1872 went over to Llanstephan, and was walking out with John Davis on the cliSs. He looked over the cliSs, and saw the respondent and the co-respondent come out from the rocks. At the time nobody was in sight on the sands. They walked towards the village arm-in-arm. They saw witness. On going to the rocks witness saw a cave, on the floor of which there was sand, and there were deep marks of heels in the sand, and on looking further he saw footsteps leaving the cave. The marks of the heels were small ones. This witness was severely cross-examined, but adhered to his statement that there were no persons on the sands, although they were much frequented, and Carmarthen people went there. John Davis, clerk in the Carmarthen and Cardigan Rail- way Company, said he was, at Whitsuntide, 1872, in company with some friends at Llanstephan. He was walk- ing out and remembered seeing Mrs Jones and co-respon- dent coming out of a cave from under the dills. He saw them at the mouth of the cave. They then walked from the sands towards the village. Nobody was on the s mds. Witness and those he was with went down to examine the cave. The cave was long enough for a man and woman to lie down in it. The sand at the bottom had been much disturbed, and there were heelmarks, which from the size of them he should take to be those of a lady. Cross-examined The marks were as those of a lady leaning against the rks. They traced footsteps from the sand going towards the village. James Phillips said he was a draper at London House, Lammas-street, Carmarthen. He knew Mr and Mra Jones and also Lewis. In June, 1872, he remembered seeing the co-respondent go down the street. He went in the direction of the petitioner's house. When be got opposite to it he took off his hat and walked straight into the house. He remained there until a minute to one. He remembered a sale on the 23rd of May 1872, and from this remembered that it was on a Thursday that he saw Lewis go into the house. Cross-examined: Mr Jones's house was 145 to 150 yards from witness's. David R. Thomas said that he resided in Union-street, Carmarthen, and in May 1872 was with last witness when he saw Lewis take off his hat and go into the house. A lady was at the window. He remained in the house a little short of half an hour. Cross-examined: It was Mr Lewis's proper way home past the house. Jonathan PhiUips (who gave his evidence in Welsh) said he was a farmer, and his farm was near Mr Lewis's place at Wauniago. He knew the parties to the suit, and saw the respondent in the neigh- bourhood of his farm in the early part of 1872. It was about 7 p.m. when he saw her. She went in the direction of the road towards Wauniago. There was no public footpath across the neld, and she was going in the direction of Lloyds' neld. He saw Mrs Jones on the following Saturday about the same time, he being in the house at the time. He saw Mrs Jones with Mr Lewis at the time, and they went to the gate that led to the green -a plot of ground in front of the house. A week afterwards he again saw Mrs Jones about the same time near the A sylum Lodge, near the Training College. Mr Lewis was not with her, and she seemed to be going towards Carmarthen. Later on ia the evening he saw Mrs Jones and Mr Lewis together in Lloyds' u. neld, and they were making for the house, and he saw them enter at the front door. Knew Thomas Morgan, and saw him on this night. He also saw Mr Lewis and Mrs Jones coming away from the house about nine o'clock; they were walking together arm-in-aim. Cross-examined :—Had not seen anything wrong going on between them; they only appeared to walk along quietly. It was always light when he saw them. Mr Jones, the petitioner, called on him last April twelve- month they had often met and talked matters over. Re-examined :—The path that goes away from his house was very much frequented, and it was after he left the Asylum, at between six and seven o'clock that he saw Thomas Morgan (who also gave his evidence in Welsh) said that he was a labourer at Carmarthen. Recollected in May, 18Z3, the last witness speaking to him, and in consequence of what he said he accompanied him down to the held belonging to Phillips. He SloW Mr Lewis commg up along the small lane from Lloyd's meadow to the road, and Mrs Jones was with him. After seeing them they ran away, and when he and PhiUips parted company shortly afterwards be again saw Mrs Jones and Mr Lewis about nine o'clock. The witness went on to speak of Mrs Jones going through a gap leading from the Militia-review neld to another one, which was in the direction of Wauniago. Cross-examined During 1873 the militia were at Car- marthen, and there were heaps" of people about. There was a street from the barracks called Picton-place, with houses on both sides.and at the end there was the review- neld. The field adjoining the review-neld could not be seen from Jonathan Phillips's house, as there was a de- pression in the neld. He did not see her in the depression. He lived near to Phillips, and was nearer to the factories than Phillips. than Phillips. David Morgan, a builder, at Swansea, remeotoerea letting apartments to Mr and Mrs. Lewis at Carmarthen. They were at 29, Brunswick-street, and he let them from about the 25th March, 1873, till Michaelmas. They oc- cupied the apartments ail the time. From Carmarthen to Swansea was about 20 miles. He remembered seeing Mr Lewis about September, and said that he would give up the apartments at the end of the quarter, as his wife had made up her mind to return to Carmarthen. William Williams was a clerk to Messrs, Green and Grimths, solicitors, of Carmarthen. Remembered about June, being in the Five Fields, reading a book, and saw Mrs. Jones coming through the third field, and Mrs. Lewis was about 20 yards behind him. I hey passed him and he went to the fourth 6eld and again saw them. There was a hedge dividing the fields, a:\d he saw Mrs. Jones with her head drooping slightly on Mrlewiss fhoulder. Mrs. Jones saw witness and blushed. Mary Jones said that she was living as a servant to Mr Warren, and was there in 1873. He was living at Picton- terrace, which was opposite Five Fields. Recollected on one occasion seeing Mrs Jones crossing the road ihto Five Fields. This was on the 4th of July, at thr, o clock. John ThomM was a sfrvant there, and witness spuke to him. and he went out into the Five Fields. The case will be prcceedfd with on Wednesday next.

WANTED, A NEW DRINK.