On 16 April 1917, a petition for divorce was filed at the Principal Registry in London by Mr. Edward Jan Hoos, a banker who lived in Eaton Place, London. He was alleging that his wife, Gwyneth Alice Hoos had ‘…frequently committed adultery…’, with a named co-respondent... (1/10) - ThreadSky

divorcehistory.bsky.social • 82 days ago

On 16 April 1917, a petition for divorce was filed at the Principal Registry in London by Mr. Edward Jan Hoos, a banker who lived in Eaton Place, London. He was alleging that his wife, Gwyneth Alice Hoos had ‘…frequently committed adultery…’, with a named co-respondent... (1/10)

Comments

divorcehistory.bsky.social•82 days ago

...a Mr. James Hughes Massie, ‘…at 26 Gloucester Place, Brighton, in the County of Sussex’. As we discussed in a previous blog, a husband petitioning for a divorce only had to prove his wife’s adultery. But how had Edward and Gwyneth got to this point? (2/10)

divorcehistory.bsky.social•82 days ago

Edward and Gwyneth (then Gwyneth Alice Mansergh) had married only 5 years earlier, in 1912 at St. Paul’s Church, Knightsbridge when they were both in their 20s. They’d lived together as husband and wife in Hampstead and had one child together, Martin Edward Jan Hoos, born in September 1913. (3/10)

divorcehistory.bsky.social•82 days ago

There’s no further information about those five years of marriage in their J 77 file, and there are no newspaper reports about the divorce trial or their lives during this time. What we do know is that as part of Edward’s petition for divorce he was asking for custody of their child... (4/10)

divorcehistory.bsky.social•82 days ago

...and as the ‘innocent’ party in the case it was highly likely that this would be granted. He was also asking that the co-respondent, James Hughes Massie, should pay Edward’s costs in the case, and this wasn’t unusual. In a husband’s petition for divorce, if a named male co-respondent... (5/10)

divorcehistory.bsky.social•82 days ago

...was found to have committed adultery with the wife, he would usually be liable for all the costs incurred by the petitioner and respondent, as well as their own. In fact, when the case was heard in the Divorce Court on 17 November 1917, the Honorable Sir Maurice Hill... (6/10)

divorcehistory.bsky.social•82 days ago

...the High Court judge, presided over the case. He found Gwyneth to be ‘guilty of adultery with the Co-respondent James Hughes Massie’ and ordered James to pay the Petitioners costs (how much these amounted to is unclear in the case file). Most importantly, custody of Martin... (7/10)

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply