THE AYLESFORD AND BLANDFORD DIVORCE SUIT.

Inangahua Times, Issue 79, 6 September 1878, Page 2

THE AYLESFORD AND BLANDFORD DIVORCE SUIT.

(Prom tho Pull Mall Budget.) In tbo Probate nnd Divorco Pi vision on Wednesday and Thursday, tho oaso of Aylosford v, Aylosford and Blandford camo boforo Sir James Ifannon nnd a special jury. It was a potition prcsontcd by Hcrioago, Earl of Aylesford, for a dissolution of tho marriago with his wifo Edith, on tho ground of her misconduct with tho Marquis of Blandford. Both dofendnnw hnd filod nnswors denying tho charge, and tho Queen's proctor inter* vonod and nllogod collusion between tho partios, nnd further Mint Iho petitioner liitnsclf had been guilty of misconduct with Mrs Dilko and others. The Eorl of Aylosford denied tho allegation. His conn- , sol stated his lordship was marriod on Fob. 8, 1871, at St Goorgo's, HanoverSquare, and that thoro had boon (wo ohildron tho issuo of tho marriage, ono of whom was born in 1875. Tho petitioner was in 1875 invited to join tho suite of tho Prince of Walos on his visit to India, and ho left England in November, 1875* un was absont from this country until j February, 1876, Tho coM-ospondont was and old friond of tho potitionor's and v murricd man. Tho Countess did not dony tho allegation and thoro was no donial on tho piirt of tho co-respondent. Anxious to avoid soandal, his lordship, on tho cir* oumstnnoos coming to his knowlodgo, exooutod a dood of separation. Tho basis of this agreement having subsequently been violated, ho had takon tho prosont proceedings. Evidonoo was givon to show that during Lord Aylcsford's absonoo tho Mnrquis of Blandford had visited L.idy Aylosford at Paokington-hall, Warwickshire, and frequently dined with hor alone. Subsequently they wont to Paria and occupied apartments together vnulor tho namo of Mr and Mrs Spencer. Tho corn tontiou of tho Quoon'd proctor was that tho oireumstanoo conncotod with tho risit to Paris had boon arrangod in ordor that tho petitioner might bo onablod to apply to tho Conrt for roliof, but that ho was not cntitlod to roooivo it, inasmuoh as ho had neqloctod his wifo and had himself boon guilty of misconduoL In support of this contention ovidonoo wns adduced showing that Lord Aylosford had visitod tho Cromorno Gardens, whoro ho was seen in tho company of looso womon, and that ho ha-1 mot womon in a privoto room in a oerlnln houso. Evidonco was also «ivon that Mrs Dilko nnd Lord Aylosford hnd ■ beon soon togothor in oncu ofchor'x bed* rooms at Lord Aylosford's house. On the resumption of tho oaso on Thursday it wan statod that ho could not wholly meet tho ovidonoo brought against him tho provions day ; and ho folt that tho potition oould not be sustained, but ho dosirod that an opporiunity might bo given to Mrs Dilko nnd himsolf to deny tho ohargo alleged against them. Mrs Dilko and Lord Aylosford woro thon oallod, and doniod upon oath that any improprieties had over takon plaoo botwoon thorn. Tho jury thon found that tho Countess of Aylosford had com* mittod adultery with tho Marquis of Blandford > that tho Earl of Aylssford had aotod in collusion ; and furthor Iliad tho End of Aylosford hnd committed adultery Upon this finding, Sir James Hannon dismissed tho potition, and condemned tho Earl of Aylosford and tho Marquis of Blandford in tho cost of tho suit.