Henry Bernard HARTLAND 1891-1985 Newent -> IoW- prior thread (General)

by Mike Pinchin , Bedford, England, Wednesday, December 06, 2017, 22:32 (2539 days ago) @ dbcaves@xtra.co.nz

This fills in a few details,

BNA Leeds Mercury - Wednesday 16 June 1915

THE FRUIT OF FOLLY. LEEDS WIFE’S APPEAL TO HER HUSBAND.

Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane, sitting in the Divorce Court, had before him yesterday the petition of Henry Bernard Hartland, a miller, of Reading, for a dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Mrs. Hilda Hartland, formerly Miss Hilda George, on the ground of her adultery with the correspondent, Wm. Thorn. The parties were married at Reading in October, 1911, and there was one child of the marriage. In 1913, the petitioner being ill, went home to his mother’s in Wales, and when he returned found that his wife had left home. In February, 1911, she returned, and remained in the house one night, then going home to her mother's in Leeds. She wrote him several letters from Leeds. Later certain information came to his notice and having made inquiries, he found that she had stayed with the co-respondent at a London hotel. He had received a letter from his wife in which she said:—
Before you divorce me, give me another chance. ... If you divorce me, I shall be ruined for life. Do not get a divorce; I love you. I have seen my folly, and I am sorry for it.

Evidence having been given that the respondent and co-respondent had stayed at a London hotel, his Lordship granted the petitioner a decree nisi, with the custody of the child.

BNA Western Mail - Wednesday 16 June 1915

FORMERLY OF WALES.

ABSENCE THERE FOLLOWED BY WIFE’S FALL.

A story described by counsel as so extraordinary that no one with common sense could believe it was told in the Divorce Court on Tuesday, when Henry Bernard Hartland, formerly living in Wales and now of Reading, was granted a decree for divorce on the ground of his wife's misconduct with a man named William Thorne. Until the case came into court Mrs. Hartland denied the allegation of misconduct, but now she had confessed. Mr. Le Bas (for the husband) told how some time ago Mr. Hartland went home to his mother in Wales and while was away his wife went away. She came back, but later left the petitioner, saying that she was going to her mother’s house in Leeds. It transpired subsequently that she went London. One evening the co-respondent met her in the Cafe d’Europe, Leicester-square, and took her to the Great Western Hotel, Paddington. There they had room and stayed the night. Thorne, it appeared, gave £5 her then and subsequently £4, but Mrs. Hartland had maintained that no misconduct took place. “That,” said counsel. ” is a story which I do not think will commend itself to your lordship or to anyone else possessed of common sense.” In a letter to her husband Mrs. Hartland said co-respondent was ” awfully well connected.” but “nothing whatever ever took place between them.” She had now confessed her misconduct.

Granting the husband a decree nisi, Mr. Justice Deane said the story was an odd one, and he could not understand how anybody could believe the plea originally put forward that Mrs. Hartland had gone with the co-respondent in the circumstances stated and that there was no misconduct between them.

Counsel for the wife applied for costs now that the suit was undefended, but his Lordship said if her solicitor Leeds wanted costs he must come to the court and explain how he came to believe the story.