A CURIOUS DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6763, 21 July 1883, Page 2 (Supplement)

A CURIOUS DIVORCE CASE.

The case of Sykes v. Sykes and Wells came before the London Court recently. This was the petition of the husband for a divorce by reason of the adultery of his wife with the co-respondent, Mr. Richard George Wells. Both of the accused parties were connected with the Fulham murder, which, by a curious coincidence, occurred on the Oaks Day twelve months ago. The co-respondent, who was in court to give evidence in the petitioner's case, was in convict's attire, and was in the care of two warders. Mr. Searle, who appeared for tho petitioner, said that his client, Mr. Henry Cecil Sykea, was a young man studying for holy orders, and was in receipt of between £600 and £700 a year. Unfortunately for him he met the respondent, who was a person of immoral character. He married her on the Gth October, 1870, and they afterwards lived together at Shrub Cottage, Woking. After the marriage she behaved very badly, and contracted habits of intemperance, and ran her husband into debt. She was violent towards him, and assaulted him. He got into difficulties, and made arrangements with his creditors, He was persuaded to consent to an arrangement that she should have the control of his income, and an order was made to that effect by the Court of Chancery. After she got the control of the money, her conduct became worse, and she turned her husband out of doors. Ultimately they separated, and the respondent allowed him £2 per week. Subsequently she disappeared, and her husband heard nothing more of her until he saw an account of the Fulham murder. Previously ho had been reduced to privation, and had been a schoolmaster and an omnibus-driver, In regard to tho charge, the co-respondent was tried for the murder of a man, but was acquitted on that charge, and was found guilty of manslaughter, and was sentenced to penal servitude for life. This event brought to the petitioner's knowledge the fact that his wife had been intimate with the co-respondent, who had been charged with the murder, and he instituted these proceedings. In support of the petitioner's case, the co-respondent Wells gave evidence to the effect that he had committed adultery with Mrs. Sykes. He stated that he was now undergoing a sentence of penal servitude for life. The respondent gave evidence at the trial. There was no defence. Sir Jamea Hannen granted a decree nisi, with, oosts.