ROMANTIC CASE.

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 88, 8 September 1863, Page 5 (Supplement)

ROMANTIC CASE.

Kp(From the Surrey Comet.) • • • || c Court* of Queen's Bench, ■?Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, ■Lyices Wightman, Crompton, K3&, in ex partc Alexander, Bf'liord Monteagle and another, ■arth applied on behalf .of » r : rilexander, tor « writ of habeas ■directed to Lord Monteag'e and Idward Cayley, tarrWJ "£ Mi them to bring «P •*• bodl * s Ehildren, Mary I«*f * A]e *" Sixteen years ofag* kit January, Kilter CaVley Alexander, age, 1, him as «MtdM«u K^ffidav^sUted hatD^Alex> ■fwas married in 184£. t(: L Mar^ ■IfU that the children wer^ the fcthat marriage. ;The^pfeanr K|d to live with his wife from the. ■££ marriage till 1832 though: K. from differences, which, how-. E^re reconcile as they arose. ■gfc'WS, very serious differ-, Krcse of «> painful a character «s Hi in a separation deed, dated. B^r-'4J,' 1852, by which the; Kit undertook not to molest his her again ; *the : Km to 'have 'the 'whole 1 control of Efdren and *heir education,, and Kg Jdf her -death during their • ■L snd.tfhikit the father was ■ftheir guardianship, was to be enMfto'him. with fflr.'G. A, Gay ley, ■nhers; ..fttfthar provision being ■ for the' 1 * g«* rQt i anS k*P att< * e< * u ~ \ li in the event'of; the father's death, j Bk Alexander, .(the applicant con- , Bil it appeared, died three years j B^gy the deed it was arranged that ing as he continued : to live in shire, and did not molestor annoy rife, he should -see the children; ifmontb, 'they being brought tor »here he might direct, and that soj : In/he abided by the terms of the Jthe said Sir George Cayley would .* l^tiitable provision for them. The!; writ stated that he and his wifci El by the terms of the deed till. Eat, 18S3, nearly a year after itsj Ktion, when she left England for, ■rica, taking witk her the two] ■ten, without his knowledge or con- ■, the first information he obtained] communicated to him by] rife after she had left. j ifebmary, 1-554, he received a; r Vrom her, dated Brooklyn, Newj. c, -stating that she was residing! j, but that she was«on the point of; g-tooneof the Western States to a situation that Was likely to be iahent and lucrative ; but instead ; tat she in reality returned to Eng- ; by the same mail that brought her i r. 'Her return was kept a profound si from Dr Alexander, and she led at various places under assumed ear-first at Camberwell under the c of -Plummer, then at Yarmouth., ar.the 'name of Willis, and lastly at fksrn, i«nder whicih. name she died yt&s buried tlrerre in 1860. He nothing 'of his wife or the children 862, being under the impression they were -aU in America, for he to receive letters from America the American, post mark, written lis wife, and "dated as though they j written by her in that country i the fact was the letters were written Ingland, and sent "over to America, re they were posted, and so delivered le husband's address in this country, t the applicant said was done by Mr aid Cayiey, his wife's first cousin, j 1861, Br Alexander, who then v -nothing of his wife's death, wrote fr Edward Cayley for fta formation ecting his wife and children, but ived no answer. He accordingly e r a seo©nd letter, explaining that fad scrupulously avoided annoying nfejand'complained of being treated • cruel and Unnatural a manner by [wife's relatives, and the, affidavit pel; that lie believed his wife assumed [rent names to prevent his knowing ; whereabouts^ and it was.only till 24hat he accidentiy heard that Mrs £j bad died at Malvern, upon which earched the registry, and by further lines he ascertained that Mrs Willis, died theYe xm the 29 th February, ), was his wife. the 14th January, 1863, he reed information from a friend which ifedhim to go to the Lady's College lej-street, and there he found his gii'ter entered on -the books in the e -of "Wood, and fchatshe had been ed there and was residing with Mrs ill.awidowlad^ofGloucester-street, lerpark, by direction of Lady Mont-' & He called at Mrs Bovill's, saw Ifubgter, and had a long cpnveV- | with her, and from ,her he found l>is son had gone to Lady Mo'nte*S tor a^frw days. She appeared ynuch pleased to -see her father, said she and. her brother^ w.ery very >y, for every bnewaskina'tc) them, wished the children to pass the apching Easter holidays with him' « the charge of a lady relative, in' jP " 1S daughter acquiesced, but de- | him to write to Lady Montea-le S^f^"^. Cayley, as they '«ed everything. On the afternoon *c same day ; he called on Lord Mpagle, and had an interview with »\Jand informed him that he had U»8 daughter, and that he underpins children were under; the care «dy Mbnteagie,' and ;Mr Edward [e y« His Lordship did not deny od informed Dr Alexander that if PpHed for a habeajs<corpus it ?should '« against him. ; An invitation by « was forwarded to Mr Cayley for Children to visit him under the f; i a lad y relative, but; na notice Wen of it, and the applicant had .since .»een the chjldreu. Lady "eagle, it was stated, was a relaier letters were written> and u}ti .

mately Mr Edward Cayley replied to a letter from Dr Alexander's aunt, desiring her, if she communicated with him in future to do so through his solicitor. ' • ' The Court ultimately granted a rule ?im, to show<;ause why a writ of kaheas should not issue, , Rule nisi accordingly.