In this case Robert Charles Mayersbeth sought for a dissolution of his marriage with Rose Matilda Mayersbeth on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent, David Murdock. The respondent denied the charge, and alleged that her husband had been guilty of cruelty towards her. The co-respondent had not put in an answer.
Mr. Tudor Howell appeared for the petitioner; Mr. Symons for the respondent.
It appeared that the parties were married on February 25, 1888, at St. Peter's Church, Lambeth, and there had been five children of the marriage. It was alleged that the respondent had given way to intemperance, and in December 1897, had been convicted of the manslaughter of her child, which had been found dead in its mother's arms when she was picked up drunk, and for this offence she had been sentenced at the Central Criminal Court to nine months' hard labour. The parties had not been together since June 1897, but in October, 1899, the respondent gave birth to a child, the paternity of which was disputed by the petitioner and the respondent.
The PRESIDENT, after hearing the evidence, said that, having seen the witnesses, he was satisfied that the whole aspect of the case ought to bring him to the conclusion that adultery had been committed, and with regard to the charge of cruelty against the petitioner he thought it was set up as an answer to the charge of adultery and was not made out. There would, therefore, be a decree nisi with the custody of the children to the petitioner.