Divorce of Robert and Rose Matilda Mayersbeth
Decree Nisi - 10 July 1900

[Decree Nisi.]


In the High Court of Justice


PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION.
(DIVORCE.)

Before the Right Honourable SIR FRANCIS HENRY JEUNE, K.C.B.,
The President,

Before the Honourable SIR JOHN GORREL BARNES, Knight, one of the
Justices of the High Court,

sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, in the County of Middlesex.

On the 10th day of July 1900.

Mayersbeth against Mayersbeth & Murdock

The President having taken oral evidence of the Petitioner and of the Witnesses produced on his behalf in support of the Petition filed in this Cause, and the oral evidence of the Respondent and of the Witnesses produced on her behalf and having heard Counsel thereon, on behalf of the Petitioner and Respondent the Respondent and Co-Respondent not appearing and not defending the Suit

pronounced that the Petitioner had sufficiently proved the contents of the said Petition, and decreed that the Marriage, had and solemnized on the 25th day of February 1888 at St.Peter’s Vauxhall in the parish of Lambeth

in the County of Surrey between Robert Charles Mayersbeth the Petitioner and Rose Matilda Mayersbeth then Jones spinster the Respondent be dissolved by reason that since the celebration thereof the said Respondent had been guilty of Adultery

unless sufficient cause be shown to the Court why this Decree should not be made absolute within Six Months from the making thereof, and condemned.

Respondent, in the costs incurred and to be incurred on behalf of the said Petitioner in this Cause.

And on the application of Counsel for the Petitioner it is ordered that

Robert Charles Mayersbeth
George Mayersbeth, Joseph Mayersbeth
Edward Mayersbeth and Percy Mayersbeth

the children, issue of the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent, do remain in the custody of the Petitioner until further order of the Court, but it is directed that such children be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the Court without its sanction.

And it is further ordered that the Petitioner do pay to the Respondent her taxed costs, not to exceed the amount ordered to be paid into Court or secured for the Wife’s costs of hearing.

(Sd) A. Musgrave
Registrar.

Back To Chronology

Source: National Archives J77/678