Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

18 articles on this Page



[No title]




[No title]




DIVORCE COURT REVELATIONS. ♦ In the Divorce Court on Tuesday Mrs. Melville Meade, a music hall artist, pro- fessionally known as' Lottie Jackson,' petitioned Sir F. Jeune for a dissolution of her marriage on the ground of the cruelty and adultery of her husband, J. C. Meade. The suit was undefended.—Mr. Abinger, petitioner's counsel, said the marriage took place at the parish church of Chelsea in 1892, the respondent having then no occupation, nor had he since followed any occupation. Very shortly after the marriage the respondent treated his wife with the most abominable cruelty, which culminated in a murderous attack upon her with a razor. She Dut UD her arm to avoid the blow and received a severe cut on the arm. He was brought up at the Central Criminal Court, and at the petitioner's request was treated as a first offender, the Recorder consenting to his being released upon the usual recognisances. The respondent continued his ill-treatment of the petitioner, with the result that she secured an engagement at the Cape and went out there. Previous to her going he stole her watch and chain and pawned them. During her absence he broke into her flat in London, which she had let. For this he was brought before a magistrate and bound over to keep the peace. Since her return to this country he had smashed open the front door of her house in Maddox-street and threatened her with a revolver. He was again taken before a police magistrate and again bound over to keep the peace. He had also followed her to the music-halls and threatened her. Evidence was given corroborating the cruelty and misconduct. His Lordship pro- nonnced a decree nisi, with costs. A BAD CASE. On the same day, Mrs. Emily Grace Lock- wood petitioned for a divorce from her husband, Samuel Lockwood, because of his cruelty and misconduct with three women. There was no defence.—Mr. Pritchard, in opening the case, said that the parties were married in 1883 at St Mark's Church, Cheetham Hill, and after- wards lived at Didsbury. They lived an un- happy life. On several occasions the respon- dent made himself amenable to the law, once for robbery and again for forgery. Notwith- standing these faults the petitioner was kind to him, and when he came out of prison lived with him and forgave him. He, however, treated her very cruelly and left her in 1896. As to the adultery he wrote from America, where he had eone, admitting to his wife his unfaithful- ness with several women, and, in consequence, these proceedings were instituted. The peti- tioner, in her evidence, stated that about twelve months after their wedding he was sen- tenced to eight months' imprisonment for robbery. When he came out of prison she for- gave him, and they lived together again. In 1891 she had to leave her husband owing to his cruelty, but afterwards went back to him. In June, 1892, he was sentenced to four years' imprisonmeat for forgery. He* obtained his liberty in 1896, but although they resumed their marital relations, he left her again in August, 1896, because he again got into trouble and had to leave for America. While her husband was away she supported herself by obtaining employment at a local telephone office. Evelyn Alexandra Lockwood, the thirteen-year-old daughter of the petitioner, gave evidence as to the cruelty, and evidence having also been given as to the adultery of the respondent, his Lordship granted a decree nisi. In the Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice on Wednesday, before Mr. Justice Barnes, the case of Hooton v. Hooton was heard. This was a suit in which Mrs. Edith Hooton petitioned for a divorce from her husband, Mr. Peter Hooton, whose occupation was not stated, on the ground of desertion and adultery. Mr. Barnard appeared for the petitioner, and stated that the marriage took place on the 5th June, 1880, at St. Nicholas' Church, Liverpool. The parties afterwards lived at Liverpool, and there were four children of the marriage. The husband had deserted his wife on I several occasions. In 1884 he went to America, and returned in 1885. In 1887 he took his wife back to live with him, but in 1889 there was a further separation. In 1893 he wrote a letter to his wife declining to return to her, adding "I would not sleep in a house occupied by your mother for the contents of the Bank of England." On hearing that he had been living with a Mrs. Carroll in Dorset street, the wife instituted the divorce proceedings. Mrs. Hooton having given evidence in support of counsel's statement, and stated she and her husband had lived in Morton street, evidence was given to prove that the respondent and Mrs. Ellen Carroll had been living together in Dorset street.—On this a decree nisi was granted. A BIGAMIST'S ARISTOCRATIC VICTIM. Mr. Justice Barnes the same day granted Maria Rosa Bini, who said her father was an Italian general and a count, a declaration of nullity of her marriage with a Mr. Ernest Chas. Wilkin on the ground that he had a wife living at the time of the marriage in 1892. Counsel stated that these two ladies were not the first wives respondent had had. THE KRELL SUIT. In the Krell matrimonial suit, in which petitioner, the wife, who was 20 years of age and respondent 58 at the time of the marriage, asked for a judicial separation on the ground of cruelty. Mr. Justice Barnes on Wednesday said he thought the case was not proved, and dis- missed the petition. A TILSTON SUIT. Mr. Justice Barnes had before him on Thursday the petition for a divorce of Tom Penlington, of Tilston, Cheshire, on the ground of the adultery of his wife, Emily Jessie Penlington, with the co-respondent, Thomas Gibson. The suit was undefended. It transpired that the marriage took place at the parish church, Tilston, on the 8th Nov., 1893. They afterwards resided at that place, DUt; some time after the husband had to complain of his wife's conduct. She neglected her child, and used to go out and leave it locked up in the house alone. The child was nearly starved, and in consequence of this neglect on the part of the wife the husband was nearly prosecuted. Subse- quently he handed it over to the care of his mother, and his wife continuing her conduct they agreed to separate. From that time they never cohabited, but in April this year the husband heard that his wife had had another child, of which he was told the co-respondent was the father. On the latter being taxed with the fact, he admitted it.—Mrs. Mary Griffiths, of Low Crossbill, Tilston, said she attended Mrs. Penlington in March last at her confinement, when she (respondent) admitted that Gibson was the father.—A decree niri was granted.



qtrmp anb Folunteer fletos.


[No title]