Court of Probate and Divorce: July 15, 16 and 17 (Before Lord Penzance and Special Juries) … PINSENT V. PINSENT AND MESHAM: This was the husband’s petition for a divorce on the ground of his wife’s adultery with the co-respondent. He also sought damages against the latter. The respondent did not answer nor appear, but the co-respondent answered, and traversed the adultery. Dr. Spinks Q.C., and Dr. Swabey was counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Middleton appeared for the co-respondent. The petitioner is a barrister and Queen’s counsel, practising in the Supreme Courts of St. John’s, Newfoundland, and a member of the Legislative Assembly of that island. He was married to the respondent at Newfoundland on the 28th of April 1856, and there are eight children the issue of the marriage. They were stated to have lived in great comfort and happiness up to December 1867, when the respondent left for England with two of the children to have them placed in school. The co-respondent was an officer in the Newfoundland army. He was also aide de camp and private secretary to the governor, and on intimate terms with the petitioner and his wife. He left St. John’s on a visit of inspection with the governor in October 1867, and was absent when the respondent left for England in the December following. On the respondent’s arrival in England, she went into lodging in a house in Tavistock Street, Bedford Square. The day after her arrival a gentleman called at the house who turned out to be the co-respondent and took a bedroom in the same house. Two days after the respondent left with him and was away a day or two. She, however, returned and took the children to Bristol, where she placed them at school On the 1st of February following the respondent and co-respondent were found sleeping in the same bedroom at the Royal Hotel Weymouth, where they remained to the 3rd. The afterwards went into lodging at Weymouth, where they lived as man and wife. Soon after that they went to Southampton and ultimately to the Cape of Good Hope. Evidence was adduced which clearly proved the adultery, after which the Jury gave a verdict for petitioner, with damages against the co-respondent to the amount of £3,000.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0747 Hennock: Robert John Pinsent: 1834 – 1893
GRO0062 Hennock: Anna Brown Cooke: 1837 – 1882