A SINGULAR DIVORCE SUIT.

Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 80, 1 October 1887, Page 2 (Supplement)

A SINGULAR DIVORCE SUIT.

The following particulars of a very extraordinary divorce suit aro given in the London letter of a contemporary :— The proceedings in tho Divorco Court, on 25th July, will, I fancy, somewhat startle Mr. Arthur Henry Linzey, erstwhile of Trowbridge, Well"., but now of New Zealand, when he cones across them in tho conrne of perusing the Homo papors. Tho report is bo short, and so very much to the point, that I do not think I can do bettor than append it. " Whitmarsh v. Whitmarsh and Linzey" is the heading. Tho petitioner, us usual in such cases, pleaded for a tliHHolution of marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery with a third person, and that person was tho "friend of the family," Mr. Linzey. Tho latter being in New Zoaland, there was no defence. Mr. and Mra. Whitmarsh were married in 1871. Mr. Whitmarsh, a jeweller by trade, was a Baptist of strong religious viows, and lie was in the habit of going about in the dihtriet preaching on Sundays to the Baptist body. He lived happily with his wife until January of the present year, when to his astonishment ho discovered that his wifo was carrying on an impiopor inter- | course with the co-respondent, who had boen introduced to the house by his brother, an intimate friend of tho petitioner's. It appeared that tho intimacy had been going on for fivo years, and that when it oommencod the co-respondont was twenty-three and the respondent thirty-one years of age, and tharo was no doubt that he was the father of the two youngest children. She was in the habit of going in the autumn yearly to Woymouth, and Mr. Linzey used to join her there Tho co-respondent confessed the intimaoy to his brother, who had him sent to New Zealand; but beforo his doporturo a curious document was drawn np botween Mrs. Whitmarsh and Mr. Linzey. It was a deed of agreement, made on 6th January, 1887, whereby tbo misconduct was admitted between them, and the belief was Bot out that he was the father of tho two youngest children of tho respondent. He agreed to leave England and go to Now Zealand, whore ho would uso his best endeavours, the document set out, to put himself into a position to provide " a home for all parties concernod;" and, further, he pledged himsolf by the deed not to ongage himself to any person or marry, but to marry the respondent when able to do so. Ihe document concluded that, "in the event of his failing to comply with tho conditions, through any fault or neglect of his own, ho will be liable for liquidated damages in the sum of .£500." (Laughter.) The husband at that time knew nothing of the deed or tho intimaoy, but on Sunday, 16tb January last, he was ongaged to preach some soventeen miles from his home, and wanting somo voice lozenges, ho went to the pocket of his wife, who was asleep, for tho key of tho drawer where they wero kept, and there he found an undated letter addressed to her from the co-respondont, which was couohed in torms of the strongest affection. It referred to " links binding us together," and coucluded, " Youra till death." He showed the letter to his wife, and asked her for an explanation, when she at - nco made a full confession to him immediately after which she loft the house. Evidence having been given bearing out the opening statement of oounsel, tho jnry found for tho petitioner, and assessed the damages at £450. Sir James Hannen — I pronounce a decree nisi, with costs, and order the amount, when it is got— (laughter) — to be paid into the Registry.