REMARKABLE DIVORCE CASE

Southland Times, Volume I, Issue 52, 8 May 1863, Page 2 (Supplement)

REMARKABLE DIVORCE CASE

(From the Wcshly Despatch, Feb. 22. •Gipps v. Hume.—Sentence. —This remarkable suit, whioh was argued a short time ago, came on for judgment on Tuesday,' in the Divorce Conrt. The material facts, as they appeared in the trial, maybe thus summarised. The petition was one filed by Mr. Augustus Pemberton Gipps, secretary to the patent department of the Soulh Kensington Museum. He became acquainted with Miss Helen Etough Cruiksh ink, the daughter of a captain in the Innian service, now deceased and he married her on the 15th October, 1851. The marriage was described as having at first appeared to be- one of affection, and one in every respect likely to turn out happily. The young couple went to live with the \ bride's mother (then Mrs. Taynton), in ] •C-idogan-pl-.ee, Chelsea; anrl they afterwards resided in Hereford-square. A child was born in the month of July, 1852, and a temporary separation took place, but the parties soon came together again. In February, 1854, the respondent, finding herself a second time pregnant, wrote to bey husband begging him seriously to consider the propriety of an amicable permanent separation. She said, "Their is neither love nor respect between us I feel that my having no affection for you may be a great cause of our present misery ; for I know .that you had affection for me, and no doubt it would have continued if I had returned it." Mr. Gipps went to America, and on his return in 1855 he found that another child had been born to him. The cohabitation was resumed, and while the parties were living: together the respondent made the acquaintance of Mr- William Wentworth Fitzwilliam Hume, of No. 20, Curzon-street, Mayfair, the member for Wieklow. The circumstance did not for some time excite any suspicion in the husband's mind ; but one day the respondent asked him to sive a letter for her to her mother. This letter he found to contain the following enclosure to the co-respon-dent : —"My own dearest, —l only write you a few lines in answer to your letters received yesterday, the one written for Mr. F . Do uot worry about me. I shall soon be al! right, and I am much better. I cannot help leing triste at not seeing you ; but when I can I shall soon be myself again. Do think and arrange with mamma about getting me away from here. P. G. (the petitioner) says I sball not go Of course I know if T choose to a;o I can ; but then it would make him my enemy— at least, I suppose it would. If the doctor or any one would oniy say I ought! The doctor attending' me says I ou<*;ht not to move out for a month, and then go to a very cold bracing air. Locock told me Nice would suit me admirably ; but you see the man who is attending us now is P. G.s doctor, and.of courss he would say -what be was told. How I wish we were all out of the way ! He is so happy and delighted at seeing me so powerless that no one would feel inclined to pUy him. _ I will write again to-day, after receiving tbe letter which you have written through mamma 3 God bless yon dearest! Your poor little pet, Helen." Mr. Gipps immediately instituted - inquiries, which satisfied him that there had been a guilty intrisjue between the respondents, and he then instituted a suit for a divorce. In liis petition he did not claim dam apes, but a sum 0fL.1,000 was placed by Mr. Hume into the hands of Mr. Halliwell, a mutual acquaintance of the parties, nominally to await the result of the trial, but, in point of fact, it appeared that Mr. Gipps drew L6OO of the money in two or three sums, and eventually the balance was paid over to bim before the ease came on for trial. At the last moment a negotiation was entered into, which resulted in Mr. Gipps going, with Mr. Halliwell, to his ("petitioner's) solictor, Mr. Evans, and authorising him to consent, with the exception of one clause, to terms of compromise, a copy of which they brought with them. Mr. Evans immediately waited on Mr. Ade, the co-respondent's solicitor, who struck out the words objected to, and requested that the record might be withdrawn. Mr. Evans said that might be impracticable, but promised that if it could not be done no evidence should be offered in support of the petition. The agreement contained a stipulation that the co-respondent should give a bond to pay to the petitioner a further sum of LI,OOO on the death of his (Mr. Hume's) mother, from whom he had considerable expectations, **nd in the meantime to pay the interest on the L 4.000 at the rate of five per cent. A negotiation was commenced with Messrs. White, Broughton, and White, Mrs. Gipps's solicitors, but they would not consent to the withdrawal of the record, except on the followihg terms —viz., an allowance of L2 50 a year, access to the children, or the custody of one of them and the surrender of the respondent's letters. Mr. Evans declined to accede to these terms, but offered to accept " reasonable" ones. Nothing, however, came ofthe discussion ; the respondent's counsel objected in open court to the withdrawal of the record —the judge sustained their objection—and, in June, 1861, the cause came on in due course for trial. No evidence was given on behalf of the husband, and the petition was dismissed. Mr. Ade now refused, on behalf of the co-respondent, to give tlie bond, alleging only, according to Mr. Evans's account, that the undertaking to withdraw the record had not been fulfilled. Eventually, Mr. Acle offered to execute his bond, if Mr. Gipps would settle L2OO a year on the respondent till the L 4.000 became payable, and then make over the money to her. This Mr. Gipps declined to do, indignantly refusing to admit the co - respondent to interfere between him and his wife. He then filed a bill in chancery against Mr Hume for specific performance ; but the co-respondent demurred, alleging that the bond would be equivalent to damages in an action for criminal conversation, and that "by ' the Divorce Act it rested solely with the judge ordinary to say how such damages should be applied. The vice-chancellor, Sir W. Page Wood, held that the agreement was a fraud upon this Court, and allowed the demurrer. Some steps had also been taken by Mr Hume to recover back the £3000 from the petitioner, but they had not been persevered in; and Mr Gipps, disappointed in his attempt to enforce the agreement, now brought the present suit for a divorce on the ground of adultery committed subsequently to June, 1861. Ample evidence in support of the charge was given, and it was shown that on the 4th of May last Mrs Gipps had been delivered of twins. The wiole contest at the bar had, therefore, simply been whether or not the petitioner had been guilty of such misconduct ancl connivance as ought to disentitle him to the relief he prayed. Dr Spinks had argued that the arrangement for the settlement of the first suit had not included any corrupt bargain to the effect that the respondents might continue their adulterous connection, but that the petitioner had, on the.contrary, insisted that the "reasonable terms" to which he had offered to agree, should contain a clause stipulating that the payment of any allowance to his wife should be only during her good behaviour. On tho other hand, the Queen's advocate argued that hisclient had never refused to give the bord for L 4,000, but had only insisted on the petitioner first settling L2OO a-year on his wife, a condition for which he had a perfect right to stand, but after the petitioner had agreed to actept L 7,000 from him as a solatium for his wounded honor. It had been proved in evidence that the only thing the petitioner did with regard to his wife, after signing the

agreement, was to employ a detective, in October, 1861, to find out where she lived ; and it was, therefore, abundantly clear that he did not concern himself at all, either about her or her conduct, 60 long as he felt he had a chance of filling his pocket with the price of her shame. Sir C. Cresswell, after recapitulating the facts, and offering a few comments upon them, said the decree of the court was that the petition be dismissed. i