The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-06-15 00:00:00

Legal.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES, JUNI 7.
(Before the JODOI.OIIDINABY and • CO[ooloo Jury.)
PEACOCK V. Ple.oool.
Dr. Swabey, Mr. Hawkins, and Mr. Phear appeared
for the petitioner; Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. H. T.
Cole for the respondent.
This was a petition presented by Mrs. Sarah Peacock
for a judicial separation on the ground of the adultery of
her husband, Alexander Duff Peitooo:g.
The respondent pleaded • denial of the adultery, con-
nivance, and condonation; and also that the petitioner
had been guilty of adultery.
The respondent is • silk manufacturer in Spltalields,
and was married to the petitioner, whose maiden name
was Cuthbert, in October, 1853. They have one cur.
riving child, between two and three years old. In sup-
port of the petitioner's case • witness named Matilda
Carpenter was examined. She proved that she had
lived in the servioe of Mr. and Mrs. Peacock from. Sep-
tember, 1855, until the beginning of 1857, and that in
June, 1858, during the absence of her mistress on • visit
to Tunbridge Wells, Mr. Peacock had oommitted adul-
tery with her. In the following February she was deli-
vered of a female child in the Bethnal-green Work-
house. It was elicited, in cross-examination, that about
a twelvemonth before going into Mrs. Peacock's service
the witness had charged • person named Jones with
oommittiug a rape upon her, but she denied that elle
ever had connection with any one except Junes and the
respondent. A letter was also produced, written by
Mr. Peacock after his wife had left him, in which he
acknowledged the error of which he had been guilty
with regard to the servant, assured her of his affection,
and entreated her to return, as without her he was the
"most miserable of men." A friend of the parties,
named Bartholomew, stated that they had cohabited
after the confinement of the servant, but added that he
was present at an interview at which Mrs. Peacock told
her husband that she had only gone back to him in con-
sequence of his assurance to her, "as • man and a gen-
tleman," that he was innocent, and that she had not
lived with him sinoe she had discovered his adultery.
The person with whom Mrs. Peacock was charged to
have committed adultery was a cousin named Hodges,
but that gentleman was called on her behalf, and denied
that any familiarity or impropriety had ever passed be-
tween them.
Dr. Phillimore, in the course of his address to the
jury, urged that the return of the wife to cohabitation
constituted condonation.
Sir C'. Cresswell asked whether the learned counsel
proposed to treat condonation as a question of law or as
a question of fact.
Dr. Phillimore thought that it was • question of law,
arising out of • question of fact.
Sir C. Creswell said he would ask the learned gentle-
man, as an advocate of great experience in these matters,
whether a wife who was aware of her husband's adul-
tery, but who remained with him because she was un-
willing to leave • sick child in his custody, could be con-
sidered to have condoned his offence.
Dr. Phillimore submitted that if she returned to her
husband's bed her cohabitation must be deemed con-
donation.
Sir C. Creswell said, according to that view, it was •
question of law, not of fact. But it had been held by
the Ecclesiastical Courts that submission to a great deal
of wrong might become a wife in the hope of reclaiming
her husband. The mere circumstance of cohabitation
did not therefore constitute condonation, so that condo-
nation was a question of fact. It was a very important
question, and he hoped it would soon be settled by a
court of appeal.
Dr. Phalimore contended that the evidence of the girl
Carpenter, which was the only proof of adultery, was
unworthy of credit ; and that even if the respondent had
Mae yielded to temptation in his wife's absence, she had
condoned his offence.
Evidence was given on the part of the respondent to
tise effect that in February, 1857, a quarrel took place
between Mrs. Pea jock's father and the respondent, after
' which Mrs. Peacock went away to her mother's house,
and returned to her husband after a few days' absence;
that then, and on subsequent °emissions, she had used
expressions which proved that she knew, or that she
had heard, that her husband had had • child by the ser-
vant; and that she had lived with her husband until
the autumn of 1857. One of the witnesses, a servant in
the employment of the respondent, also spoke to having
seen the petitioner go into Mr. Hodges's bedroom two or
three times while she was staying in 1857 at Tunbridge
Wells with his mother; but Mrs. Hodges and other wit-
nesses were called in reply, who supported the evidence
given by Mr. Hodges, negativing the charge of improper
conduct on her part.
Sir C. Cresswell, in summing up, repeated his distinct
opinion that condonation was • question of fact, and
asked the jury whether, when the petitioner returned
to her husband, they thought she had • full knowledge
of his conduct. With regard to the recriminatory
charge of adultery, he thought than was no evidence of
any levity of conduct on the part of the petitioner, and
pointed out that the charge was quite inconsistent with
the earnest desire the respondent had expressed for •
reconciliation.
The jury, after deliberating for two hours and • quar-
ter, returned a verdict for the petitioner upon all the
issues.

respondent.
-- ~ .

Tao "PRIM PROSIOUTIONO."—The indictments pre.
ferred Against Mr. Truelove, publisher, in the Strand,
and H. Toherwiski, for allepd libel. on the Emperor of
the French, are fixed for trial on Friday next, the first
week of the after-term gittimrs. The trials will take
plea in the Court of Queen's &nob, before Lord Camp-
bell and a speolal jury. The Attorney-General, the
Solleitor•Gimeral, and Mr. Welab), will oonduat the pro.
'mention on behalf of the Crown. Hr. Edwin James,
Q.C., Hr. Phinn, Q.C., Hr. Hawking, and Mr. Simon
, have been retained for the defendants'.

Point RsPoura.—An action brought by a Mr. Lewis
against the "Daily Telegraph" newspaper, has been the
means of procuring tits judgment of the Court of Qn•all'a
Bench upon newspaper reports of cases hoard before
pollee magietrates. That Court, in opposition to an
antiquated ruling, can see no distinction with reined to
the publication of legal proceedings between the House
of Lords and the " pie•powdur" court held to settle dip
putes at %fair. In the action against the "Telegraph,'
the substantial issues were found for the defendant, and
' a verdict given for the plaintiff upon one count, to which
defendant appears to have pleaded an insufficient plea.
The Queen's Bench reoognises the politspeourt as •
public court, and even regards with favour that publicity
hy which the journals so frequently assist the course of
justice.

BANKRUPTS.

(From the London aWill of runty.)
Philip Abraham Barnes and John Barnes, Mandford
Forum, Dorset, wooletaplers,
&bort Trim, Weymouth and MeWombs Roils, oon•
.

„
footionor,
John. Jsm!eton, Bithopsisto•striot, without, London,

sack maker.
Thomas Pulbrook, Pangbourne, harness maker.
Alexander Ogg, Diatomite, London, manufecturer of
Iron goods.
Soholedeld Crowther Shed and George Underwood,
Southwick, Stafford, engineers.
Benjamin Potts, Nottingham, victualler.
Joseph Skertehley, late of Kinpland, Middlesex, civil
engineer.
Henry James Crutohet, Stionehouse, shipowner.
Edward We'man, Dewsbury, currier.
Nathan Mitchell, Leeds, cloth manufacturer.
George &Soft, Bradford, draper.
George Robinson, Wert Hartlepool, builder.
John Armstrong, Durham, earthenware manufacturer.

_
BANKRUPTCY ANNULLIM.
William Blip, jun., West Ham, Essex, antler.

(From the London Gazette of Friday.)
James Weir, Albert-square, Commercial-road-East,
merohent.
Joseph Parsons and Joseph Hartland, Dudley, Wor-
cestershire, and Tipton, Staffordshire, ooalmasters.
Henry Dickenson, Nottingham, stonemason.
Philip Phillips, Spalding, Linoolnshire, dealer in
eittle.
Evan Morgan, jun., Tonyratail, Glamorganshire,
draper.
George Knight, Stroud, Glooestershire, brazier.
Robert Briggs, Burgh•in-the-Marsh, Lincolnshire,
brewer.
John Thomson M'Knight, Liverpool, timber merchant.
Slab Smith, Radeliffe-bridge, Leineuhirs, innkeeper.

view

The exhilarating and rustaining properties of tsa depend on
the quantity of "tAeieelt contains. The young early pickings,
called by the Chinese "fine erop is. abound most in this
menthol quality, u an ounoe of this fine drone eort oontains
10 grain.; the lest or '. eutumn crop," contains but little, and
I. annesqnently eery deficient in diteoUr. The English public
desire efileay, 011 Obtain may &mos tos, but are often disap-
pointed through a deceptive practice the Chinese bare of
"leoltur or colouring, for foreign eupply, the withered
Olig,"" (OOP, this mares ell appr &Qs, and enable. the
Chinese to peas off ths in.. prür.d boe.ln leaves in lieu of the
best; the great profit deiived renden the radios almost
natured, but the aketitsk Amadeu never use coloured Tea.
ROurneen& Co., London, knowing that sterling quality is
pntensi before users epparsnes, Import truly choice sorts
without powdered odour on the surface; this tea is to be bad
only 50 ifferniksean's ALUM : for LOC4I, list see advertisement
in Ws &try PoPer•

L