Kent white horse symbol - 9251 Bytes gbflagpolemd.gif - 63006 Bytes

Kent Online Parish Clerks

white cliffs of Dover


Transcribed by Michael Coomber, graciously provided to the Kent OPC for display.
Contributors of additional abstracts are noted by their initials placed in square brackets at the end of the source citation.

June 21,
Source:  Jackson's Oxford Journal, Saturday, June 28, 1823; Issue 3661.
ARCHES COURT, June 21. - BEST v BEST. ---

      Sir John NICHOLL this day pronounced an elaborate sentence in the above cause, appealed from the Consistory Court of Rochester, and affirmed the judgment of that Court, which was, that in the suit for separation by reason of cruelty, instituted by Mrs. BEST against her husband, she had failed in proof of her libel; and in the cross suit of divorce, by reason of adultery, brought by Mr. BEST against his wife, he had not shown himself to be entitled to the remedy which he prayed --- Mrs. BEST was the daughter of a labourer named HALLOWBY;  she lived at Canterbury, next door to a common brothel, and occasionally visited there.  Mr. BEST was aware of this.  Previous to the marriage she was in prison, from whence she was released by Mr. B. that the marriage might take place.

[Editor's note:  To summarize, this divorce was not granted.]

May 7,
Source:  Liverpool Mercury etc (Liverpool, England), Friday, May 9, 1873; Issue 7894.

      The case of GREEN v GREEN and BELL was before the Divorce Court on Wednesday.  This was the husband's suit for a divorce, on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent.  The respondent answered and traversed the adultery, but the co-respondent did not answer or appear.  The petitioner is a magistrate of the county of Kent, and resides near Romney Marsh, in that county.  He was married to the respondent, who had been a barmaid, at St. Saviour's Church, Southwark, in August 1859.  After the marriage they lived at Lynd, and there are two children the issue of it.  The co-respondent, BELL, is the vicar of the parish of Lynd.  Some time in the early part of 1872 the petitioner found fault with his wife paying so many visits to the vicarage, as her doing so was raising a scandal in the place.  She, however, did not seem to have paid much attention to his remonstrances.  On the morning of the 5th September of last year she left home for London on business, as she alleged.  In the course of that day she was found there by the co-respondent, with whom she proceeded to Richmond, and they passed the night at the Star and Garter Hotel there as Mr. and Mrs. BELL.  They were found there by the petitioner's friends next morning, and soon after the present suit was instituted.  The parties were stated to be still cohabiting together as man and wife.  - The adultery was proved, and the court pronounced a decree nisi with costs.