DORE
Albert Edward b c1862 Islington, London, England, ref Islington v 1b p 34
Married on 11 Sep 1883 at Parish Church, Stoke Newington
Jane Francis EWENS of Hampton Mdx, England
There always have to be 'skeletons' in the closet. Even the most famous people have them in their tree at one time or another. Seems ours was Albert Dore.............(an inlaw, well, sort of............)
from - The Times - Tuesday, Sep 11, 1893; pg. 1; Issue 30922; col A
Jane Frances Dore petitioned for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
There was no defence.
Mr. Searle appeared for the petitioner.
The petitioner, whose maiden name was Ewens, was married to Albert Edward Dore
at the parish
church of Stoke Newington on September 4, 1883. Her petition stated that after
the marriage she lived and cohabited with her husband at Blackpool, in the
county of Lancaster; that there was no issue of the marriage; that her husband
and she had never lived and cohabited together since about September 11, 1883;
and that since April 12, 1884, her husband had refused, without lawful cause, to
permit her to live and cohabit with him. In support of the petition two
witnesses were examined – the petitioner and her father, Mr. George Thomas
Ewens. From their statements and documentary evidence it appeared that the
petitioner was not 15 years old at the time of the marriage, the respondent
being 21. Before it the petitioner was living with her father and mother at
Carey-house, Hammersmith, and the mother of the respondent was a friend of the
petitioner’s family and on visiting terms with them. In the latter part of
August or the beginning of September, 1883, Mrs. Ewens and her two daughters –
the petitioner and her eldest sister – went on a visit to the respondent’s
mother, who lived at Montague-house, Seven Sisters-road. It was in the course of
this visit that the petitioner and the respondent got married, their marriage
being a clandestine one. Neither Mrs. Ewens nor her elder daughter knew anything
about it. A licence for it was obtained by the respondent, he swearing that the
petitioner’s parents consented to the marriage.
On the morning it was solemnized he and she left his mother’s house, he saying
he had a business call to make, and that she was going with him for company.
After the marriage ceremony they left London and lived together for two or three
days at Blackpool. From there the respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner’s
father asking that they might be forgiven, and be allowed to live together; but
it was considered that the petitioner was too young for such an arrangement, and
Mr Ewens insisted that there should be a separation. Further, he instituted
proceedings against the respondent in a police-court for the abduction of his
daughter, but after the case was before a magistrate on two or three occasions
the charge was withdrawn, and the respondent made a settlement on the petitioner
for life, which was secured by the rents of certain property. From that time the
petitioner has lived with her father.
By arrangement the respondent saw her at intervals in her father’s house, but
the last date at which he did so was January 4, 1884, and since then she has
never spoken to or seen him. In February, 1886, he wrote a letter to her asking
her to cohabit with him, but an answer was sent to him on her behalf and signed
by her in which she declined to do so. The reason assigned by MR. Ewens for that
refusal was that the respondent had no home to take the petitioner to. Mr. Ewens
wrote to him asking what he was going to do as to providing a house for the
petitioner, and in reply he only offered her a home in the house of his mother,
where he himself was living. On February 22, 1886, he filed a petition for a
restitution of conjugal rights. A copy of that document and one of the citation
founded on it were served at a house in which Mrs. Dore was then staying, but no
attempt was made to serve her personally, and as thus there had been no
sufficient service no notice was taken of the irregular one. The respondent did
not go on with his suit, but an agreement was come to for a reduction of the
income payable by him to his wife. After February, 1886, the petitioner received
no communication from the respondent until April of the present year. The law
requires that before a suit for restitution of conjugal rights can be brought
there must be a written request for a return to cohabitation ‘ and on April 12
last the petitioner wrote to her husband as follows :-
“Sir,-Since you last came to see me, now more than ten years ago, I have been
living with my father. The time has arrived when I must ask if you are willing
to return to me or if you will provide a home that I may come and live with
you.” On April 13 he replied to that letter in these terms:-“Mrs. Dore,-I have
received your letter that we should live together again, but cannot consent to
it, and after so many years have found other friends and must decline to
consider you my wife longer, and you cannot be surprised at my determination.
Yours, &c., A. DORE.”
In reply to Mr. SEARLE’S question whether she desired to live with her husband,
Mrs. Dore said that she did not, but she explained that by saying she had
received information that he was living with a woman at Weymouth.
Asked by Mr. SEARLE whether she knew that when she brought this suit, she said
she did ; but asked whether if her husband gave up the woman she would be
willing to live with him, she replied that she would be.
Both the petitioner and her father were closely questioned by the learned JUDGE
on the circumstances of the living apart for so many years, and the recent
institution of this suit. In the result,
The PRESIDENT observed that there were features in this case which made him
think it necessary to look very carefully as to the circumstances in which the
petitioner wrote to the respondent requesting him to return to cohabitation, and
the terms in which her request was made “ but on the whole he thought that there
had been desertion by the respondent without just cause, and that the
petitioner’s request for a return to cohabitation did entitle her to institute
this suit when the respondent refused to comply with that request. There would,
therefore, be a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, with costs.