A DIVORCE CASE.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2835, 16 March 1878, Page 3

A DIVORCE CASE.

WESTON T. WEBTON AND SLABE. — This was the petition of tho husband, a well-known stockbroker in the City, for a dissolution of his* marriage on account of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, who was stated to be in the same position of life as the petitioner, and, like him, a member of a good family. Answers were filed denying the adultery, but there was really no question as to the offence having been committed, and the suit resolved itself into the amount of damages which the petitioner had sustained. It appeared that the parties were married in February, 1874, and afterwards they resided in the tJxbridge road, Surbiton. Here the petitioner kept a good establishment, and had servants, horses, and carriages, and everything befitting his station of life. Owing to business transactions the plaintiff became acquainted with Slado, and after a time he invited him to the house. They thus became on intimate terms, and during the absence of Mr Weston his supposed friend was a constant visitor at Surbiton. The petitioner knew nothing of his wife's misconduct and his so-called friend's treachery until a servant handed him a number of letters which left no doubt in his mind that his wife had been guilty of criminal misconduct with Slade. He at once accused her of being unfaithful to him. She did not deny it, and with Slade, who was at the time in the house, left, and they went to the Golden Cross Hotel at Charing Cross, and passed as man and wife. It transpired that the respondent had £700 her own right. Mr Inderwiek, Q.C., without imputing intentional carelessness to the petitioner, pointed out that he had acted injudiciously in allowing the co-respondent, who was a young, handsome man, to be constantly at his house during his absence for periods at a time. Sir James Hannen, in summing up the case to the jury, deprecated as a rule damages being asked for. There were,, however, cases in which damages could well be claimed, and the case before the Court was one of them. All the duty of the jury consisted in was in estimating as best they could the damages that the Setitioner was entitled to by the loss ot is wife, and it was no part of their obligation to punish the co-respondent for his offence. In the present instance the petitioner appeared to have lost a specific sum, which probably, the corespondent was now in the enjoyment of. The jury at once found a verdict for the petitioner, with £700 damages. Sir James Hannen granted a decree mat for a divorce, with costs against the co-respondent.