NEWS BY THE ENGLISH MAIL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2268, 24 June 1880, Page 2

NEWS BY THE ENGLISH MAIL.

MAY AND I) EC UM BELL 'i'hc divorce case of “ Woolcomho v. Woolcombe ” came before (he Divorce Division a few days ago. It was originally a suit by the husband for a divorce on the ground of Ids wife’s adnilery with various gentlemen: but the co-respondents were dispensed with. The ease, winch came before the Court as undefended, was tried on March 27, IS7‘l, when, after hearing the evidence, the learned judge made a deeree idsi. In (lie month of November following the Queen's Proctor intervened to show cause why such decree should not be made absolute, on the ground that, the petitioner had connived at ins wife’s adultery ; that he had been guilty of neglect conducing to such adultery, and that lie had kept back material facts from the Court on the hearing of (lie cause. It appeared that the petitioner is at present rector of (lie parish of Tyde, in Gloucestershire. Previous to Ids appointment as rector of that parish be held i'or some time a curacy at Exeter, where lie seemed to have married the respondent, at tin, 1 lime a young lady of seventeen, while, lie was an elderly gentleman of sixty. The misconduct of the wife was said to have commenced while they resided there in 1872 and 187.1. It was alleged by the Queen's I’roctor that during those years she. formed an improper intimacy with a gentleman of the name of Arnold, who visited her at a!! hours of the day, and that lie often visited her in the morning, Ijy seven and eight o’clock, and had a cup of tea witli the lady. Of these visits the petitioner was alleged to have been cognisant, but that though warned fully several of the servants, lie took no steps to prevent Arnold’s visits to his wife. Tiie Queen’s Proctor further alleged that the respondent carried on (lie same, course of conduct with a man of the name of Norman, that her conduct with that person was known to the petitioner, but that lie took no steps whatever to prevent its continuance. And lately, it was alleged (hat after they removed to Tyde, the wife took up with a young man the name of AVood, the son of a grocer in the village, who visited her in the house, walked and rode out with her, and all this with the knowledge and apparent .sanction of (lie petitioner. It was also slated that while at Exeter and Tyde the wife was in the habit of staying out all hours of the night, and that the husband never attempted to prevent her. Evidence was then called in support of the Queen's Proctor’s case. On the conclusion of the Queen's Proctor’s case, Mr Inderwick called the petitioner who stated that he was married to the respondent in 1871. She was then seventeen years of age. She had been educated in a convent, and was a Homan Catholic. He never had any reason to suspect that his wife hud formed an improper intimacy with Arnold. It was the same in respect to Air N orman. He was an extensive wine merchant and a most respectable man. Wood was a young man, and as he wished to hotter himself in life. Both himself and his wife did tlicii; best to instruct him, but bo never saw or imagined the least impropriety of his wife with him. Before they separated in 187 C his wife made a confession to him that she bad committed herself with a gentleman in the North of England. That gentleman’s name bad not been mon.tion.cd- His wife was very free ami affable in her-manner, and if that; constituted a ilirt, she was one. His wife was never out late at night, and he could swear positively he never went, to bed until she came home. Air Arnold positively swore that lie never comini tied adultery witli the respondent. Air Norman was also called, and gave evidence to a similar effect. After hearing the whole of the evidence, Sir James Hanncn stated if the case had been before a jury lie should have told them that there was no case to go before them. The wife, no doubt, had been a young, wilful woman, but there was nothing whatever to show that lie had over connived at or conduced to his wife’s adultery. Ho, therefore, came to the conclusion that the Queen’s Proctor had failed to establish his case, and he must, condemn him in costs. The decree nisi pronounced in the case was then made absolute.