In the Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice, on Thursday, Mr. Justice Barnes had before him the case of St. Vincent v. St Vincent and Thompson. This was a suit in which Viscount Carnegie Parker St. Vincent, of Norton Disney, Newark, and of Yorkshire, petitioned for a divorce from his wife, Lady Rebecca May St. Vincent, on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent, who was described simply as Mr. William Thompson. No defense was offered.

Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., and Mr. Barnard appeared for the petitioner; Sir J. Leese, Q.C. and Mr. R. J. Willis for the respondent; and Mr. Bayford, Q. C., and Mr. R. F. Bayford for the co-respondent.

Mr. Inderwick, in opening the case, stated that the marriage took place on the 17^th October, 1885, at Salford, and Viscount St. Vincent and his wife lived at Norton Disney and other places. Lady St. Vincent suffered from weakness of the lungs, and was in the habit of spending a portion of the winter abroad. Her husband last winter took her to Niece, but he was obliged to return to this country to look after his affairs, and she remained at Niece with a lady who was a friend of the family. When she returned she requested Viscount St. Vincent to meet her at Charing Cross Hotel, London, and she there informed him that she had formed an attachment for a gentleman whom she had met, and had been unfaithful. Viscount St. Vincent was greatly surprised, and offered to give her an opportunity of retrieving her position. He gave her until the next day to consider his offer, and said that otherwise he should get a dissolution of the marriage. The next day she wrote to say that she did not accept his offer, and that he could proceed with the divorce. Further inquiries disclosed the fact that Lady St. Vincent had stayed at the Hotel Continental in Paris with Mr. Thompson, and also at a hotel in London.   

Viscount St. Vincent gave evidence in support of counsel's statement, and said he stayed with his wife two or three weeks at Niece, and then he had to return to England to attend to his affairs. While he was absent from her, she wrote affectionate letters to him. In May, 1896, he got letters from her from Paris, and in June, in her last letter, she addressed him as "Darling Carnie" His Christian name was Carnegie. He got a letter from her requesting him to meet her in London. He accordingly met her at the Charing Cross Hotel. After exchanging a few words, she admitted that she had been unfaithful to him. He told her that he thought perhaps she would like to go home and live it down. However she said "No." He said he would give her time to think it over until the next day.

His Lordship; Did you learn from her who the person was?
Viscount St. Vincent; No, I asked her, and she refused to tell me.
Did you know Mr. William Thompson?
I had never heard of him.

Continuing, Viscount St. Vincent said the next morning he got a letter from his wife, stating "I have decided to accept a divorce. I could not possibly come back. I am myself entirely in the wrong, and ask you to forgive me and forget me" He had not seen her since. The name of the co-respondent was ascertained by a solicitor.

Mary Else said she was maid to Lady St. Vincent, and accompanied her to Niece at the end of 1895. After Viscount St. Vincent had gone back to England she saw Mr. Thompson. He became acquainted with Lady St. Vincent at Niece. At the end of April or the beginning of May this year Lady St. Vincent left Niece and went to Paris with Mr. Thompson, and stayed at the Hotel Continental about a month. While staying there she went to Lady St. Vincent's bedroom, and had seen her and Mr. Thompson in the same bed. After that they went to the Holborn Viaduct Hotel in London, where their names were entered in the visitors' book. They stayed there about a week, and witness had seen Lady St. Vincent and Mr. Thompson together under similar circumstances there.

Mr. Inderwick produced the hotel book to show the names.
Mr. Justice Barnes, upon this, granted the petitioner a decree nisi for the dissolution of the marriage, with costs against the co-respondent.   

Saturday August 1^st 1896