|SURNAME:||Chaine||FORENAMES:||William||TITLE:||Gentleman||BORN:||.||AT:||.||OCCUPATION[S]:||.||RELIGION/DENOMINATION:||.||FATHER:||.||MOTHER:||.||SIBLINGS:||James Chaine||OTHER RELATIONS:||Brother in Law: Richard Moore Sadleir||NOTES:||.||COMMISSIONED:||Cornet 19 12 1856||APPOINTED:||
Cornet 4LD 19 12 1856 by purchase vice Thomas Harling Ames who retires
Lieutenant 4LD 30 06 1857 by purchase vice Winstanley who retires
Captain 4LD 08 05 1860 by purchase vice the Hon. Charles James Keith-Falconer promoted
Major 4th Hussars 23 12 1868 by purchase vice Major Alexander George Montgomery Moore promoted
|EXCHANGED:||.||BREVET:||Lieutenant Colonel 4th Hussars 01 10 1877||LOCAL RANK:||.||TROOP NO:||.||TROOP CAPTAIN:||.||EMBARKATIONS:||.||DISEMBARKATIONS:||.||CAMPAIGNS:||.||OTHER DUTIES:||.||MEDALS:||.||COURT MARTIALS:||.||RESIGNED:||.||RETIRED:||Major and Brevet Lieutenant Colonel William Chaine 4th Hussars retires from the Service, receiving the value of his Commission, dated 13 09 1879||HALF-PAY:||.||MEDICAL REASON:||.||CASHIERED:||.||NOTES:||.||POST DISCHARGE MILITARY SERVICE:||.||POST DISCHARGE OCCUPATION[S]:||.||NOTES:||.||DIED:||.||BURIED:||.||WILL:||.||BENEFICIARY:||.||NEXT OF KIN:||.||PRIZE MONEY:||.||NOTES:||.||1ST WIFE:||Catherine/Katrine/Kathleen Edith Sadleir of Dunboyne House, Co. Meath and Nelson's Place, Co. Tipperary||BORN:||1847||MARRIED:||March 1863 [Ireland]||DIED:||1896||NOTES:||After her divorce, married the co-respondent Beatty on 02 06 1871. See Beatty 4LD||1ST CHILD:||Francis James||BORN:||1867||NOTES:||.||DIVORCE REPORT:|| Lloyds Weekly Newspaper Sunday 24 07 1870
The Officer and his Runaway Wife
The case of Chaine v. Chaine and Beatty came before the Divorce court on Friday. This was the husband's petition for a divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent. He also sued for damages against the latter. It appeared that the petitioner is a major in the 4th Hussars. In 1863 his regiment was stationed in the north of Ireland, and he there made the acquaintance of the respondent, who was a young lady of good family, and to whom he was married in March of that year. After the marriage they were stated to have lived happily together, and there were two children, the issue of the marriage, the eldest of whom was dead, but the second was still alive. The co-respondent, Lieutenant Beatty, was an officer in the petitioner's regiment, and in September, 1867, he found that his wife had been carrying on a correspondence with that gentleman, which, while it disclosed nothing criminal as having taken place between them, showed the greatest indiscretion on the part of the wife, who made a solemn promise to her husband that she would never have any further communication with him.
Soon after this the 4th Hussars were ordered out to India, but the petitioner's wife declined to accompany him on the ground of the delicate health of their child. He accordingly left her in charge of her friends, and he did so the more readily when he heard that Lieutenant Beatty was to accompany the regiment to India, so that there could be no personal intercourse between him and his wife. It appeared, however, that the co-respondent after his arrival in India corresponded with the respondent, whom he advised to leave her husband in consequence of the manner in which she had been compromised by his letters to her, and to live with him as his mistress. In May, 1868, the co-respondent having sold out of his regiment, returned to this country, and on the 27th of that month it appeared that the respondent met him at Bray, near Dublin, where she lived with him for several days and nights as his wife. In September of the same year she paid a visit to some friends in Scotland, and while there she had a miscarriage.
On these circumstances coming to light the petitioner's brother wrote to him on the subject, upon which he came home from India and instituted the present suit. He had, however, since been recalled, and was now with his regiment in India. The respondent was now stated to be living with the co-respondent as his mistress at his residence in Leicestershire. - After the evidence had proceeded a short time, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine said he could not contend against the evidence which had been given, but as Mr. Beatty was a ruined man in consequence of this business, having been disinherited, he was unable to pay the large amount of damages. His learned friend, however, and himself had agreed upon the amount of damages, and that being so he withdrew all charges against the husband. The jury, accordingly, under the direction of the learned judge, gave a verdict for the petitioner, with £800 damages against the co-respondent.
|BL SOURCES:||.||LONDON GAZETTES:||
No. 21951, 19 12 1856
No. 22016, 30 06 1857
No. 24548, 08 05 1860
No. 23452, 22 12 1868
No. 25021, 02 10 1877
No. 24761, 12 09 1879
|HART'S ARMY LISTS:|| Hart's Annual Army List 1857
New Army List 1860
The United Service Magazine 1869
Belfast Newsletter Friday 19 02 1869
Belfast Newsletter Tuesday 23 02 1869
Belfast Newsletter Wednesday 24 02 1869
Lloyds Weekly Newspaper Sunday 24 07 1870
Hampshire Telegraph Wednesday 27 07 1870
|OTHER SOURCES:||.||LINKS:||http://www.blennerhassettfamilytree.com/pages/BH07_Killorglin_K.pdf||.||.||NOTE:||Beware confusion with a second William Chaine, who was commissioned on 12 12 1856 only a week before William Chaine 4LD. His details are as follows:
Prior to commission was Lieutenant, Antrim Artillery Militia
Cornet 7th Dragoon Guards 12 12 1856 by purchase in succession to Lieutenant Montague Dettmar promoted
Lieutenant 7th Dragoon Guards 09 10 1857 without purchase vice Dowdeswell promoted
Captain 7th Dragoon Guards 10 05 1864 by purchase vice Captain George E.F. Kauntze promoted
From Captain 7th Dragoons Guards to Captain 10th Hussars 14 06 1864
Captain 10th Hussars 14 06 1864 vice C. T. Vandeleur who exchanges
Captain 10th Hussars from Half Pay 21 04 1877 vice A. Hunt retired on Half Pay
From Half Pay 10th Hussars to Captain 10th Hussars 21 04 1877
Captain and Brevet Major William Chaine placed on the Retired List on 01 07 1881, and granted an honourary rank of Lieutenant Colonel from that date
Patent No. 2486 recorded in the Office of the Commissioners on 20 08 1872:
Provisional protection allowed to William Chaine, of Portrush, in the county of Antrim, Captain, 10th Hussars, for the invention of "improvements in saddle bags for carrying water."
London Gazette 04 03 1881:
St. James's Palace: The Queen has...been pleased to appoint Major William Chaine to be Her Majesty's Marshal of the Ceremonies, in the room of Augustus Savile Lumley, Esq., promoted
London Gazette No. 21949, 12 12 1856
London Gazette No. 22049, 09 10 1857
London Gazette No. 22852, 10 05 1864
London Gazette No. 22863, 14 06 1864
London Gazette No. 24508 and 23896, 13 09 1872
London Gazette No. 22852, 20 04 1877
London Gazette No. 24946, 04 03 1881
London Gazette No. 25021, 30 09 1881
London Gazette No. 25074, 21 02 1882
4th Light Dragoons Index
Court of Queen's Bench, Dublin Thursday
The Queen v. Richard Moore Sadleir in the matter of Chaine, an infant. Habeas Corpus.
Mr. Joshua Clarke, Q.C. [with whom was Mr. Ryan, Q.C., and Mr. P.J. McKenna], appeared on behalf of Richard Moore Sadleir, of Dunboyne House, County Meath, to show cause against a conditional order which had been obtained for an attachment against Mr. Sadleir and others. A writ of habeas corpus had been obtained by Major Chaine, of the 4th Hussars to bring up the body of his infant son, Francis J. Chaine, alleged to be in the custody and procurement of the said Richard Moore Sadleir and Mrs. Chaine, the wide of Major Chaine, at present residing at Dunboyne House. It was stated that no satisfactory return had been made to the writ, and, accordingly, the conditional order had been obtained for an attachment for contempt. Mr. Sadleir had put in a return to the writ, which was, in substance, that the said child was not in his custody, power or procurement. Counsel argued that the conditional order had been granted on an ex-parte statement, leading the Court to believe that Mr. Sadleir had been guilty of contempt, and that the return was evasive and substantially untrue.
Mr. Justice Fitzgerald - What was the date of the service on Mr. Sadleir?
Mr. Clarke - Friday, the 20th January; and on Tuesday, the 26th, the first writ was issued. He submitted the Court was misled in being induced to grant a conditional order for contempt. Major Chaine, the husband of Mrs. Chaine, and father of the infant, made an affidavit, in which he stated he was married to Miss Catherine Edith Sadleir, of Dunboyne. The infant, Francis James Chaine, the subject of the present proceeding, was born in 1867. In October, 1867, Major Chaine's regiment, the 4th Hussars, sailed for Bombay. He accompanied his regiment, but his wife and the infant remained here, it being arranged they should come out after him. She never did come out to him. He further stated in his affidavit that while in India he obtained information, leading him to apprehend that his wife had been unfaithful to him. He stated he came to England in December, 1868, and since his return he had instituted an action for crim. con., with a view of obtaining a divorce. He further stated that the child, who is now two years old, was in custody of depondent's said wife, who was living at Dunboyne House, County Meath, the residence of her brother, Richard Moore Farrell [sic], and in charge of a nurse named Mary Jane Nicolls. Under the circumstances, Major Chaine was dissatisfied the child should remain in the custody of his wife, whose alleged condict, he submitted, rendered her unsuitable to have custody of it. The affidavit went on to state that Mr. Sadleir had refused to give up the child, and had prevented the nurse, Mary Nicolls, from receiving any communication from Major Chaine. Mr. Sadlier had made an affidavit, in which he stated he never believed there was a shadow of foundation for the suspicion that Mrs. Chaine had been unfaithful, and that she resided for a considerable time with the mother of Major Chaine in the North of Ireland, and was always accompanied by her child. He did not believe there was any ground for the apprehension his sister-in-law would elope with a person named Beatty, who was an officer in the same regiment of Hussars. He had spoken to the lady on the subject, who assured him there was not the slightest ground for such a suspicion. Mrs. Chaine had been living at Dunboyne House without any concealment up to the time she left depondent's house on the 28th January last. Mr. Sadleir positively denied that he ever refused to receive the writ; nor did he want in any way to evade the process of the court. He [Mr. Clarke] submitted, on the whole of the case, that Mr. Sadleir had not been guilty of any contempt.
The Chief Justice - Did Mr. Sadleir receive the writ of habeas Corpus?
Mr Clarke, Q.C. - He did my lord. It was given to him at the terminus of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Company. Mrs. Chaine had been served on the same occasion with the writ when she was returning from Belfast. Mr. Clarke Q.C., continued to state that Mr. Sadleir informed Mr. James Chaine that he believed Mrs. Chaine was still in communication with Beatty, who, at that time, was in India serving with his regiment. Mr. James Chaine told Mr. Sadlier he feared something bad would occur - that Beatty would come home, and that Mrs. Chaine would elope with him. When spoken to on the subject, she declared that since she promised not to write she only broke her promise once, having received several letters from Beatty, and thought it unfair not to let him know in writing that she made up her mind to abandon her bad intentions, as she would make a great many unhappy if she went away.
Mr. Justice Fitzgerald - What is the date of letter in which that statement appears?
Mr. Clarke, Q.C. - There is no date to it. It was written in May or June, 1868. In another letter he stated he thought she had given up all intention of eloping with Beatty. She, however, never did elope with him, nor did she ever intend to bring away the child with her, if she did entertain the notion of going away. The child was, in fact, brought down to Belfast, and Mrs. Chaine was willing to hand the child over to Major Chaine, who did not seem to know his own mind on the subject, his mind being occupied with the one suspicion.
The arguments had not concluded when the Court rose.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Falkiner, Q.C., and Mr. Richey [instructed by Mr. Falkiner] appeared on behalf of Major Chaine.