Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

2 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

BARRY DIVORCE CASE.I

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

BARRY DIVORCE CASE. I LADY SEEKS DISSOLUTION OF HER MARRIAGE. THE PARTIES WELL-KNOWN IN THE TOWN. SENSATIONAL ALLEGATIONS BY PETITIONER AND WITNESSES. As was intimated in the Barry Dock News last -week, the long-expected suit of Mrs Mary Evelyn Bissett Livingstone, formerly of The Towers, Barry Docks, bat now of Glasgow and London, for a dissolution of her marriage with Dr John Livingstone, M.D., of Barry Docks, on the ground of alleged adultery and cruelty, came before Mr Justice Bargrave Deane in the Divorce Division of the High Geurfe of Justice on Thursday, the 11th instant, and the hearing of the case was continued on Friday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the evidence given on Ssofch sides being of a voluminous character. Answers were filed by the respondent and co-respondent (Miss Amy Evans), matron of the Voluntary Hospital, Barry Docks, denying the allegations of the petitioner. Mr Priestley, K.C., and Mr Peasei instructed by Messrs Barton and Company, London agents of Messrs J. A. Hughes and Davies, solicitors, of Barry and Cardiff, appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Barnard and Mr Bayford, instructed by Mr F. Finch., London agent of Mr A. Jackson, solicitor, Barry, were counsel for the respondent. Mr Priestly, m opening the ease, said the parties were married on February 21, 1894, at Glasgow. The respondent was a medical man, practising at Barry Dock. He, unfortunately, became addicted to drink. He was in the habit of using most shocking language to his wife, and on the 24th of July, 1901, he threw her on the bed, held her down by the throat until she was nearly suffocated, and then went to the dressing-table, got a razor, and threatened to kill her. On the 23rd of August, 1902, he knocked her down and Btruck her in the face.' He threatened to kill her, and called her foul names. He threatened to take the child away. On the next day he took the child away for some hours, and struck the mother down. In April, 1904, he became a bankrupt, no doubt through drink and betting. Respondent wrote a letter, in which he referred to gentlemen as her fancy men. He mentioned five, among them a clergyman, and these were the sort of wild and reckless statements of a man who was evidently a drunkard. In addition to these letters, he wrote a series of postcards of the same scurrilous character. His wife, meanwhile, was supporting herself on the salary she earned by acting as matron of a hospital. Counsel went on to refer to the co-respondent, a hospital nurse named Miss Evans, against whom he made serious allegations. The Petitioner was examined by Mr Pease, She said she was married to the respondent on Feb- ruary 21, 1894, at Glasgow. At that time she was a spinster, and was nineteen years of age. Prior to the marriage and afterwards her husband carried on the profession of a doctor at Barry Dock. After the marriage she lived with him at Clarence Villa, Holton-road, Barry, and afterwards at The Towers, Holton-road. There was one child of the marriage -a boy. Petitioner continued He drank both day and night, and he used bad and foul language continually. He called me fool. Witness went on to say that in July, 1901, her husband assaulted her. He threw her on the bed, held her by the throat, and nearly suffocated her. Then he got a razor from the drawer, and threatened her. He said he would cut her throat from ear to ear. Witness said she had a sister named Mrs Jones- Lloyd, living at Barry, who came back to the house with her. She told the doctor that he must send witness back to her father, who must know how he had treated her. He did not deny it. He also said he would take the boy out to the Channel and drown him. Witness showed the servant, Rose Evans, her throat on one occasion. Why did you leave him ?—Because I was afraid of my life. Where did you go?-To my father's house, in Scotland. You are now maintaining yourself and child ?— I am. Mr Bayford When your husband was succeed- ing in his profession, was he one of the principal people who founded the Voluntary Hospital ?- Not to my knowledge. Was he connected with it from the very be- ginning ?-I believe so. And was not this lady against whom you have made the charge matron of the hospital all along ? -She was matron there. And you were on terms of intimate friendship ? -She came to the house at all hours, and I sug- gested, and my husband, too, that she should not come with such frequency and at such late hours. During the time you were living together, is it true that there are only two specific charges of cruelty which you can make against your husband? —No. He was always cruel. With reference to the occasion of the 24th of July, 1901. when her husband threatened her with a razor, she said he went to the drawer to get a razor. On the occasion in August, 1901, her husband locked her in the bathroom. She left him in October. Did he not complain of your conduct with a certain gentleman ?-No, never. Witness said she consulted a solicitor afterwards, and there were :iegotiations for a deed of separation. She denied that she left her husband with £700 worth of debts. Her only debt was P,5, which she had con- tracted with the knowledge of her husband. Her husband became ill shortly afterwards. He com- municated with her afterwards. Miss Evans came to see her. When she came did she ask you whether you specifically at that time made any charge against your husband ?—I told her that I forgave my husband for the sake of the practice, and not to make it public. Did she try her utmost to induce you to go back to your husband ?—She tried to coax me back to the utmost extent she possibly could. Without using actual physical force, did she try to the utmost extent of her power to bring you back to your husband ?—She asked me to go back, and brought me a note from the doctor. Did she tell you how very distressed he was at what had happened ?—Yes, she did. Did she tell you that he would do everything in his power for you if you would only go back to him ?-Yes. Did you vow at that time that you would never look on his face again, and that he should never see his child ?-No, never. Did she tell you at the time of this conversation that respondent had many good qualities, and that the best of all was that he was a perfectly moral man, and did you say in answer, Yes, that has always been his great point ?"—I had always said that I never thought my husband was immoral. Did a conversation to that effect take place between you and Miss Evans at that time ?—Yes. Did you subsequently get a letter from Miss Amy Evans while you were in Scotland ?—I be- lieve I had two, or possibly, more. Mr Bayford read and put in a long letter from Miss Evans, in which she spoke of the respondent's love for his wife, and urged petitioner to re-join him. (To witness) Do you remember that letter ? -Yes, I distinctly remember it now you have read it. The learned counsel then asked petitioner if she answered the letter. Petitioner said she did not know. How long after you had that letter were the proceedings taken against him in the Barry County-court 7-Some time, I think. Was an order made against him in the county- court, and, in order to avoid being sent to prison, was he obliged to become a bankrupt ?-He went bankrupt.. Mr Priestley (in re-examination) I see there ia a postcard from him on the 12th of January, 1904, addressed to you. It is in these words Who is your fancy boy now ? Try and get £ 4 10s a week from him. What price Judge Owen's verdict to-day?—John Livingstone, M.D. His Lordship said he had another postcard, on which the following was written :— Where are the wedding presents you stole ? What about G. T. in the stable loft ? Is your mouth as large as ever ? Then, continued the learned Judge, another post- card was before him in which these words occurred Would you like £ 4 10s a week now, or wait until you get it ? Ask your fancy boy. How would you like a feeding bottle ? Why not get —— to buy it for you ? Mr Priestley There have been a large number of communications of that kind. His Lordship Here is another :— I had your third summons to-day. I do not intend to pay you anything this side of the grave. I suggest you get one of your fancy boys to help you. Then there is another postcard, which beigns:— Mr Dear Son,-I hope you are feeling well and doing well in your studies. I am in excellent health and spirits, and shall see yoia very soon, in spite of everybody. Mr Priestley How do you account for his going on in that way ?-His madness. He was always doing that whenever a. gentleman came to the house. Was the gentleman he has named a friend of your husband's ?-A great friend. Was he a friend to your parents also ?—Yes. Witness said that when she went away to her parents she went accompanied by her brother-in- law, Mr Jones-Lloyd, who was a solicitor at Barry. Mr Bayford i did not make any charge of misconduct against this lady. His Lordship And you put the question which you did, and she absolutely denied it. You must take her denial, and you are not entitled to give any evidence on the matter. Was there ever any suggestion that you had not been chaste 1-Never. Did you observe that Miss Evans in her letter on behalf of your husband said that the doctor's love for you is as strong as death ?—She says that in the'letter. Mrs Jones-Lloyd was next examined. She said she was a sister of the petitioner, and wife of Mr Jones-Lloyd, a solicitor, of Barry. Her sister had complained to her many times about her husband. She was in great mental distress and was crying. That had happened frequently. She remembered the occasion in 1901 when her sister came to her, and she accompanied her back to the house, and saw the doctor. What did you do ?—I accused him of being unkind to her. He got up to go out of the room. The key was in the door and I locked it, and made him remain in the room till I had finished speaking. 1 accused him of taking her by the throat and trying to strangle her, and also with threatening her with a razor. He did not deny what he had done. Mr Priestley The respondent never denied that he had done something ?—He did not deny it. Did petitioner come to consult with your husband prior to her going away in October ?— Yes. I believe she came to see my husband. He went away with her to the North ?—My husband went.. I did not go. I was not well. Cross-examined by Mr Bayford: I notice that when you went to see respondent and charged him with trying to throttle and strangle your sister, you did not say that he admitted it, but that he did not deny it?—He did not deny it, but he swore and used bad language. Rose Evans, formerly a servant in the service of the petitioner, and now married, gave evidence to the effect that she was in the petitioner's employ about three years. When you were with Dr and Mrs Livingstone how did he treat her ?—Very badly. Was he a sober man ?-No. How would you describe him ?—He was more often drunk than sober. And regarding his language ?-It was very abusive. Did Mrs Livingstone make complaint to you about her husband ?—Yes. She was very agitated and crying. I heard Mrs Jones-Lloyd talking to him about taking Mrs Livingstone away if the cruelty happened again, I did not hear what he said. Did you ever go to fetch beer for Dr Livingstone 1-Yes. Can you remember on one occasion going to the public-house several times ? How many occasions did you go that night ?- About seven or eight times. With how many jugs ?—Two jugs. What sort of a wife was she to him ?—Very good.

FRIDAY'S HEARING.