THE NEWMAN HALL DIVORCE CASE.

Samoa Times and South Sea Gazette, Volume 3, Issue 112, 22 November 1879, Page 3

THE NEWMAN HALL DIVORCE CASE.

»—: Our cable me-snages reoenlly announced the granting of a uYorue uisi in the Hall divorce cast). Tho papers by the mail give full purtiuulan : —l'he case ot the Rev. Newman Hall, the well-known of Surrey Chapel, eauie befoi'gkthe Divorce Court on July 30. TuejWtitiouer prays tor dissolution of with |his wife, Charlotte Hally.on the ground of her adultery with' oiie* Frank Waters Richardson. The respondent and co-respondent deny tho onarge, and a counter oh.irge, of adultery was aisi> made liy Mr* Hill agaiu.it her husband, jit appeared from tue openiujj stato uent ot Sir 11. Junes, that Mr. Hiill made the acquaintance of the respondent, who was the daughter or Ur. Gordon (since deceased), a gentlemen ot good family and position, at H ill, and they were married at Albion Chapel ou April 14, 1846*. At tho date of her marriage Mrs. Hall was lit years of age. .Shu was an only child, and she had been treated by her father and mother as one whose will should never be controlled, and whose every wish should be gratified. She was accomplished and intellectually gifted, and had a power of persuasion wuich, combined with her husband's love for her, enabled her to have liar own way iu everything. Iq 1854 the petitioner left Hull for London, and became minister of Rowland Hill's chapel, boon after they had taken up their residence iu London the tastes ami habits of the respondent began to change. Hue ceased to sh.ire in her husband's duties as a pastor, or even to taku an interest iu them, and when remonstrated with by her husband gave way to outbreaks of the most violent temper. Fearing such Bceoan, the petitioner yielded to nearly all of her wishes. He consented to her taking liorse-exerci.se on her representation that her health was benefitted by it, i'id he allowed her, though with great reluctance, to go alone to Tring to hunt. As time went on she became leas and less devoted to him, taking no interest iu his pursuits, and seldom accompanying him to his church, and she finally rclubed him, while alleging no ground for tho rofusal, conjugal intercourse. The relation of husband and wife ceased between tberainjlß63, audi'roni that 'dato down to their separation in 1870 they Oooitnieil soparste rooms. The co-res-pondent was tho son of the landlord and landlady of hotel at Tring, whoro tho respondent stayed when hunting, and the respondent made his acquaintance while ho was still a mere boy, In 180'8 he oame to London to man ago some livery stables and iu the spring of the fallowing year the respondent asked the petitioner to givo him shelter until come transaotions,by whiohhehad beoome involved had been settled. He became an inmate of their house with the petitioner's poemission, and. thon virtually began tho intininoy between him and the respondent whuh led to the present, proceedings. In August, lafiO, the petitioner and respondent went together to the lakes, and afterwards to Llandidno; lad on their x«suru,.to London the petitioner found that the respondent's hurts had lew removed from the stables close to thoir lesideiMw in Flnebley New-road to Ike oo respondent's stables, which were

two-miles away; that she was in the habit of constantly [visiting hira at the stables, of taking tea with him and of dressing in his room. Previ, ously to this date the respondent, who was always excitable, had suffered from sleeplessness, and had taken to smoking as a sporofio. She would sit up until late in the night, and would smoke with gentlemen visitors, including the respondent, with whom she was oftsn alone iu a back kitchen or house-keepers room. Hor mode of life became at last the subject of remark among the servants and the petitioner remonstrated with her on her conduct, and also appealed to the co-respondent to discontinue his visits to the house. The respondent resented the remonstrance, and in October, ISC9, left her home and went down to Brighton with an old servant, a married woman named Trtnmer. It so happened that the co-respondent Was also at Brighton at this date, and the intimacy whioh had existed between him and tbe respondent in London was oontinued at Brighton. He was her constant companion, jhe had his meals with her, and he sat with her until 2 and 3 o'clock in the fraorning at her lodgings. The petitioner wrote to her pressing her to come home, and after several letters had passed between them she intimated that she wus willing to do so on oertain conditions, including, among others, stipulations that their conjugal relations should continue the same as they had gbeen since 1863, that an ample apology should be made to her for reflections on the co-lespondenf, and that her '■ faithful, dear, honest, and true friend" (tho co-respondent) Bhould he ever welcome at their house. The conditions were not acocpted by the petitioner, and ho and the respondent separated under in February, 1870. I i 1873<ertain communications were made by ilr. Trammer to the petitioner of a character which i id> o d him to file a petition for divorce against his wife ..ii the ground of her adultery with the on-re-pondent. lie was advised, however, by lis counsel that he could not 8 ifely go to trial ou the evidence which he was then in a position to adduce in s ipport of the Cuaige, and he withdrew, uis petition in May, 1874. Sinie then iresli iacts had conic to his knowledge, and he had in conseqnei ce renewed his sifit. The petitioner iu the witness* bix recapitulated his counsel's statemenU. Crow-examined by Mr. Willis, Q, C.: The object which I seek by these proceedings is freedom from bondage. Is not the freedom you seek freedom to marry again '( It is not for that purpose. Not for tliut object at all ? It may be the result if I get free, but it is not for that purpose that I have instituted these, proceedings, fs not one of tho objects of this suit that you may bo free to marry ? No such idea as that would influence me in this matter; but I suppose a person who gets a divorce may hopejto marry. You have that hope ? Yes. Have you uot a person iu your eye whom you desire to marry it' you were tree > I have. Haoe you not communicated to her the feelings you entertain towanls her 1 Yes. And do nit your friends know ol your objeot and purpose ? Very few. And they hav.s endeavoured to help you iu this caso ? No. I know that Mrs. Riohardson's sister ha 3 lived with Mrs. Hall since June, 1870, and that her mother has also lived with her on and off since that date. In answer to further questions put to him by the learned counsel, Mr. Hall denied that he had ever taken a Captain Cotton, who had lived in his house for a few yeai*, into his wife's bedroom at 3 o'clock iu the morning on the occasion of a tour iu Switzerland, and left Captain Cotton reading to her while he went to make a mountain ascent, Ue ndmittod that he had been in the habit of corresponding in shorthand two or three times a week with the lady (a Mias Mary Wyatt) with whom it was alleged he had committed adultery, hut he repeated that the fact of their correspondence was kuown to his wife and Miss Wyatt's family. And, iu answer to Mr. Kemp, he stated that other gentlemen besides Mr. Richardson had sat up smoking with nis wife with bis sanction. Re-examined by Sir H. James: Have you ever been guilty of impropriety with Miss Wyatt ? Mr. Hall: On my oath, neither by inadvertent action, nor hasty word, nor one unchaste thought have I ever acted towards her but as a brother to a sister—a father to a child. A portion of tho correspondence which passed between Mr. Hall and his wife, and which was of a very voluminous character, was read in the course of Mr. Hall's examination. It turned principally on the unhappy relations which arose between them ill 18C3, when they commenced to occupy separate rooms, and poiutc*d to those relations as the main cause of their differences and ultimate estrangement. Ann Drake, parlour maid in Mrs. Hull's service in 1868 and 1869, doposod that Mrs. Hall and Mr. Riohardson frequently sat up sniokiug until an advanced hour in the morning ou whioh occasions the door of tho room was generally locked. Sho farther deposed that, on a few occasions, sho had seon Mrs. Hall, whon only partially dressed, go into Mr. Richardson's bedroom before breakfast. A verdiot of adultory was given against Mrs. Newman Hall on August 8, and a decree woe made for o divorce from her Inmband, (he Rer. Newman Hall. The caso creates intense oxcitement in religious circlee especially as counter charges of adultery were made by Mm. Hall ogaiust her husband,