The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-19 00:00:00

88, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 19, 1864.

THE CODRING7'ON DIVORCE CASE.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Nov. 18.
(Before the Judge Ordhary.)
CODRISGTON r. COMING TON AND ANDERSON.
UNCIAL J C RT.

After our report left yesterday, Sir IL Phillimore read
the following letter which Admiral Codrington bad written
to Mr. Smith the respondent's father, long after the date
of the alleged oonfessioos :

"Malta, Friday, 10th May, 1862.

- - -
" Dear Mr. Sneak—Your letters came: simultaneously
on Wednesday, the previous one having apparently gone to
Genoa on its way. What • sad one indeed is the last ! It
is a meet awful state of things. Yesterday I Liked H.
(i.e. Hal?, the respondent) if she had written to you. She
said, 'No. I said that it was • great pity, and that such
• letter as I bad understood from you it was ought to have
been answered at once. She said she could not have done
it immediately, as it was • letter that required time and
consideration before replying to it. I told our
friends, Mr. and Mrs. Watson, the nature of the
appeal made to H., and what was going on.
I will now transcribe a note she sent me afterwards.
' The other evening, when the poor dear soul was seated
on the ground beside me (Mrs. Watson was ill on the sofa,
and Helen was sitting beside her on • cushion on the floor),
she poured into my ears, whilst yoci and Rowley (Mr. Wet-
son) ware talking on the other rude of the fire, such things
as conrince etc unalterably of her wandering mind. These
things were to allusion to the royal house such as I could
not put on paper, and which have no bearing whatever on
Mr moth. My great desire to communicate this to you to-
day was that some solace might be sent to that poor
mother's heart to-morrow. If you thought well I should
wish her (Mrs. S.) to know from me my firm belief,
after studying her daughter closely and carefully, i
that she s not responsible, and that she most
not judge of her silence, or rather indiffer-
ence to her wishes, as she would in any other
case. The poor mother would rejoice to think of her child
as reeving rather than sinni no in such • matter. She
cannot ace clearly —she cannot jail right,y with so much
astray in the brain ; therefore we must not condemn her. I
told Rowley the particulars : he says there can be no doubt.'
'ln copying the above, dear Mr. Smith, I have given you
Mrs. Watson's exact words, and the underliniop are her
own. Allowing it all to be • true picture—and H. has
over and over again poured out to me nonsense of that
sort, and about those persons, and about many others, too,
which I not oily could not and would not put on paper,
but which I cannot repeat—yet I feel that for the deterio-
rated state of her own =Lad and imagination, H. is herself
answerable, inasmuch as it is owing to the long course of
mental and bodily excitement that she has indulged
in —in fact, to her life of self-indulgence
that she has fallen into this wretched, I might say, de.
raddstate, as • reasonable being." [The extract from Mrs.
tason 's letter appeared to cause some sensation m the
court.)
U, resumed Sir R. Phillimore. if Mrs. Watson wrote
the letter transcribed by the admiral, she was one of the
falsest witnesses that had ever stood in the box ; if she did
not write it, then the admiral must have invented it,
which was absurd. In fact, Mrs. Watson must
take the choice of being the falsest or the most
malignant of witnesses that bad ever tortured into • wrong
meaning phrases which, if ever uttered at all—end !bathe
very much doubted—had proceeded, as she herself
well knew and admitted, from an excited brain.
As regarded Lieutenant Mildew, he (the Queen's Advo-
cate) could only say that Mrs. Codrington had dope all in
her power to produce him as a witness. With respect to
the letter signed " Lilian," it was rather • hard ease that a
lady's desk should be taken from her and ransacked—those
letters being produced which it was thought would make
against her, and those carefully kept back which would
make in her favour. It had been elia:ted yesterday that
Admiral Codringtou knew who was the writer, and yet
be had not dared to call her to explain her words. Their
obvious reference was to the respondent's visit to her hus-
band's room, which had been spoken to by Captain Pick-
thorns. As to the charges of adultery in London with
Colonel Anderson. they were wholly unproved. The wit-
nesses called in support of it were those amateur detectives
who might be regarded as the natural appendages
of the Divorce Court. The evidence of these persons was
• most edifying story, and singularly illustrated the truth
of the old adage, that "many things were true that were
not credible." If he had been told that Admiral Codring-
ton could have set persons to watch his wife while the was
living in his own house, that coming home from church he
could have met the man whom he believed to have dia.
honoured him, and could have stopped, shaken hands, and
conversed with him in a friendly manner—if he (Sir Robert
Phillimore) had been told that, he would never have believed
it. But that was the tale of the admiral's own witnesses. This
story involved a serious dilemma. Either the admiral did
believe his wife guilty, and act in • meaner which was
repulsive to believe ; or he did not believe it, and
he must have since been egged on to bring the
present suit by Mrs. Watson and his wife's diary.
More charitable to the admiral than the admiral had been
to his own wife, he would prefer to adopt the latter hy-
pothesis. The butler of the petitioner would, however, be
produced, who would show that, on one of the occasions
laid, Colonel Anderson only called to pay a farewell visit to
the Codriegtons before he left town to De married. Then
adultery was alleged to have been committed at the
Grosvenor Hotel ; but there was no proof that the parties
had ever been there. Even if they had, did people go to the
Grosvenor Hotel to commit adultery in the coffee-room (A
laugh.) Was ever such a thing heard of as an attempt to prove
adultery at an hotel without producing some one from the
hotel itself ! As to the letter to Colonel Anderson, which
bad been found in her desk, there was no evidence to show
that it was ever sent, or that it was anything more than a
mere literary exercitation. He (the Queen's Advocate)
believed that the domestic unhappiness of the parties had
mainly arisen from the separate life which they so long led.
Admiral Codringtou had formed his friendships, and Mrs.
Codrington hers and it would be jut as cruel to say that
Mrs. Codringtou ever cherished an improper feeling for
Colonel Anderson, u it would be to say that Admiral
Codriagton had done: so for Mrs. Watson. He denied
that there was anything in the letter which de.
served to be stigmatised as the production of an
adulterous wife to her paramour. No doubt it was • very
imprudent letter for a married woman to write ; but it was
the letter of • woman whose husband had repelled her from
his couch, and had sought in the company of 'mother that
comfort and solace which he should have looked for only
from her. It was impossible to say that • woman would
write in such terms to a seducer who bad cast her off for
another. It was rather such • letter as • foolish, neglected
wife might write to her male friend who had been to tier
in all her troubles and difficulties of life what her husband
ought to have been. The jury must bear in mind that every
single specific act, at which • third person could have been
present, had .been contradicted ; and he trusted that they
would by their decision read • v doable lesson to married
life. He hoped they would show husband/ and wives that
if they chose to live eeparate and apart in bed, at board,
and in toasty, they would not be allowed upon mere sus-
picions and inneudoes respecting friendships formed out of
the =flied circle to come to that court and obtain • release
from • yoke which might have become hateful to them, but
which it was not for the interests of society that they
should be allowed to shake off. (Sir R. Plullimore,
on resuming his seat, after his long and very able speech,
was greeted with some applause, which, however, was in-
stantly stopped by the officers of the court.)

Mr. Price then addressed the court for the co-respondent,
remarking that the famous ease in which "chops and
tomato sauce " was held to imply a promise of marriage
had been fairly outdone ; for his learned friend (Mr. liovili),
asked them to believe that "Dined G." meant "Went
with Colonel Anderson to the Grosvenor Hotel, Pimlico,
and there committed adultery." (Laughter.) The learned
oounselstroagly insisted on the improbability that a person
whose character stood so high as that of his gallant chest,
and who was himself about to be married, would have
acted in the disgusting manner which had been alleged;
and after the convincing argument of the gusto's Advocate,
sad the evidence to be adduced in its support, he conk.
dandy claimed the verdiot of the jury in his favour.

The following evidence was then given for the defence :
Mr. Henry Peel Bird—l am solicitor to the petitioner,
and am a friend of Mr. end Mrs. Watson. I was intro-
duced by than to the petitioner to conduct this snit. I have
not had furnished to me any letter writteu to Admiral
Codrington from Mrs. Watson. I asked him if he had such
• letter as that described yesterday, and he said he had not.
I communicated to him the purport of the letter alluded to.
There was • general notice given to me to produce all
letters received by the petitioner from Mrs. Watson. The
petitioner told me that he did not recollect he had ever re-
ceived such • letter. He said he believed that he had not.
The letter produced (that read by Sir R.. Phillimore) is en-
tirely in his handwriting. [The letter was then formally
put in.] The petitioner satisfied my mind that be had no
such letter from Mrs. Watson as that referred to. Before
the petition was filed, I think I saw the admiral before the
Watson spoke to me. He told me that Mr. Young, his
family solicitor, had declined to conduct the case because be
was not conversant with the practice of the court. This is
the second ease which I have had here.

Miss Eliza Josephine Horne—l was at Malta from 1859
to 1861. I remember a bazaar being held for the benefit
of the Sailors' Home. Mrs. Codrincton and I assisted in
making a screen for that bazaar. It was held. I think, in
May. 1860. I was very intimate with Admiral and Mrs.
Codrington. Outwardly, they appeared to lir. happily tog..
than ; bat in privet* they did not do no, according to my
ideas. I tried to bring about a better state of feeling
between them, both in Malta and in London. At Mrs.
Oodrington's request I spoke to the admiral on the
subject. He said it was too late. I had told him
I thought that if he would tell his wife what be wished her
to do, she would do it. That was in reference to her going
into eociety. There had bees a little frame between them.
Crorwesarnined—l did not know Colonel Anderson vary

-Yn. Lucy Robertson—l am wife of the Rey. Mr. Robert-
eon, of bower. %Fume was Day. I recollect, in
August, 1860, trave with Mrs. Codriogton io Switzer-
land. The party was joioed by Mr. Mildmay. When we
went to the Hospice S. Bernard, Mr. Mildmay left the
party at the foot of the mountain, and want forward to
*some rooms at the Hospice. On the night we stayed
there, after my sister and I had retired to rest, Mrs.
Codrington came to oar room. We discussed several
subjects—the journey, the 'yenta of the day, and the like.

Yrs Oodrington also made an arrangement with me to go
to early man., and she requested my sister to cell her. The
conversation must have lasted some time. During the tour
Mrs. Codrionton was open in her manners, but always per-
fectly ladylike.
By the Judge—We were only one night at the Hospice.
The Rev. Mr. Day, father of the last wither, also stated
that he had never observed the slightest impropriety of
behaviour in the respondent.
Richard Warraington—l was footman to Admiral Cod-
rington in November, 1863. I do not remember Colonel
Anderson calling, but I remember seeing his card on a Sun-
day in November ; but I don't remember which Sunday.
Cross-exiunined-1 have taken letters to the post for Hrs.
Coddrington, but I don't remember how they were directed.
I have never taken letters from her to Colonel Anderson's
lodgings.
At this stage the Court adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCREQUER.—Nov. 18.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock and
Barons Bramwell, Channel!, and Pigott.)
FOSTVR F. GAMMON.—A TAILOR'S BILL.

Mr. Huddleston' Q.C. showed cause against • rule ob-
tained by Mr. J. J. Powell, Q.C., to set aside the verdict for
the plaintiff, and for a new trial, on the ground that the
verdict was contrary to the evidence. The action was
brought by a tailor and draper at Oxford, to recover a sum
of 56/. 4s. td. for goods supplied to the defendant, the son
of a deceased tradesmen at Birmingham, who had been
placed with a farmer near Oxford to learn farming. The
defendant was under age when be received the goods, and
the question war whether a portion of them, amounting to
about 321. 10s., were necessaries for a person in his position.
At the trial which took plat* at Oxford before Mr. Justice
Sheet, the jury gave damages for the full amount claimed.
The plaintiff ran up the bill between November, 1962, and
May, 1863, and it included, among other articles, the fol.
lowing :—Silk velvet hunting cap, 1/. 15s. ; blue melton
huntingccat, 4 guineu; pair of racing breeches, 2/. 25.; whit*
silk racing cap, 10s. Gd. ; crimson ruin; jacket, 3 guineas ' •
seven pairs of mauve Paris kid gloves, at 4s.
each ; velvet hat, It. 16a. ; rosette, 71. 6d. ; and
milk scarfs, 10s. 6d. each. The learned counsel
said that the defendant was the son of a wealthy merchant,
and as he went to learn farming as an amusement and not
as a trade, it might well be supposed that he reasonably
and fairly required articles of this description. He also
said that his mother lived in an elegant villa in the neigh-
bourhood of Birmingham, and kept carriages and horses. It
appeared that the defendant became of age on the 30th of
May, 1963, and that 231. 10a. had been paid into court.
Mr. Dowdeawell was also heard against the rule.
Mr. 3. J. Powell, in support of the rule, said there was no
evidence to show that the defendant's father was a wealthy
merchant ; on the contrary, it appeared that he was only
an ordinary tradesman, being a confectioner who sold buns
and tarts and made vinegar. and that his widow did not
lire in the style which Mr. Huddleston represented. It was
intended that the defendant should get his living by farm-
ing, and he would have no money of his own until his
mother's death. Under these circumstances be contended
that the articles objected to were not necessaries bat
luxuries, for which the plaintiff ought not to sustain his
action.

—Thecourt mid they would look at the llama is the bill
before they gave judgment.

THE POLICE COURTS.

BOW-STREET.

Henry and Joseph Bannister (brothers), cowkeepers, in
Upper Gower-mews, ware summoned before Mr. Henry,
the chief magistrate, on the charge of keeping cows in the
premises situated as above without a license, and in viola-
tion of the Metropolis Local Management Act (11362), the
25th and 26th Victoria, c. 102.
Mr. Lewis (of Lewis and Lewis, Ely-place) prosecuted;
and Mr. Abrams, of Sow-street, defended.
The defendants pleaded guilty.
Mr. Lewis said that under the above act no person could
carry on the business of • 'oowkeeper in London, unless
under a license from the magistrates. On the licensing day
in October, 1863, the defendant applied for a license to
continue the business of cowkeepers, which they had for
some years carried on as above. The magistrates at first
refused to grant the license, but after • strong appeal from
Mr. Sleigh, who then appeared as counsel for the applicants
(the present defendants), • license was grante nomi-
nally for one year, the magistrate, having no
power to license for any shorter period, but on the under-
standing that the defendant, would not continue to avail
themselves of it after the 24th of June. This condition the
defendant, did not observe, but after the expiration of the
year applied for another license, which was of course re-
fused. But even after the refusal of the tininess defendants;
persisted in carrying on the business, and at present they
had upwards of 70 cows oc the premises. They were now
summoned for keeping cows there on the 7th November.
They were liable to • fine of 5/. for every day on which they
continued to infringe the act.
Mr. Abrams said the defendants had an extensive busi-
ness, which they had carried oo io the same place tar SO
years. Those who complained bad come to the nuisance,
not the nuisance to them. They had endeavoured to fulfil
their undertaking, and they had extensive buildings in pro.
grees at Willeen, which would be completed in about
three weeks. He hoped the magistrate would allow the
summons to stand over for that time, when the animas,
would be wholly abated by the removal of the cows.
Mr. Henry said, if it was not intended to enforce the pe-
nalties, there could be no advantage in taking out sum-
monses at present. If the nuisance was continued the ap-
plication could be repeated. In that case he would certainly
greet the summonses.
The penalties, amounting to 10/., were paid.
SOUTH WARM.
• - -

A few days ago a gentleman---named Moses James Fielder,
a shareholder' obtained a summons against Mr. Leo
Schuster, the chairman of the London and Brighton Rail-
way Company, for unlawfully getting into olio of the car-
riage* at the London-bridge terminus while the train was in
motion, which was made returnable for yesterday afternoon.
At the time appointed Mr. Hannan, the barrister, said he
was instructed by Messrs. Faithful to appear for the defen-
dant, who totally denied the accusation. The complainant,
however, from sonic can,, or other, did not think proper to
appear, thereby treating the court with contempt.
Mr. Woolrych ordered the summoning officer to call the
complainant, which was accordingly done, but he did not
apCr.Hannan considered the conduct of Mr. Fielder as
very disrespectful, and he had put Mr. Schuster to corivider-
able trouble and annoyance. He was here present to meet
the charge, with a number of witnesses, who, if called
upon, would put a different complexion on the ease. In
fact the chugs yearned, with a vindictive feeling, to annoy
Mr. Schuster and his co-directors.

Mr. Wookych observed that u there was no complainant
there was an end of the case. He was sorry that Mr.
Schuster should have been put to so much trouble io attend-
ing. He supposed the complainant was mistaken, and con.
sidered it wise to withdraw the charge.
Mr. HAMM assured his worship that it wu perfectly
groundless, which he wu in a position to prove.
The M 3114001 wu then struck out, and the defendant and
his friends kft the court.

CaLts To rue BAR—The undermentioned gen-
tlemen were on Thursday called to the bar by the Honour-
able Society of the Inner Temple :—Meru. Jones Quoin
Pigot, 8.A., Dublin; Richard Blake Steele, 8.A., Cam-
bridge ; Sheridan litiowles Mackay ; Edward Ross Divot*,
M.A., Cambridge • Charlie Birch, 8.A.. Cambridge; Ed-
mood Arthur R&M ; Aimable Emile Luougarede Bacve ;
Thomas Ad.ir Mosey ; John Eaton Cadman, 8.A., Oxford ;
James Lowther, 8.A., Cambridge ; John Charles Edmond-
moo Coleman ; Remy Reginald Courtenay, 8.A., Oxford ;
Charles Howard, M.A.. Cambridge ; Charles Neil,
Cambridge ; Lovell Burchett Clarence, 8.A., Cambridge ;
John William Bacon Grey ; Robert Hornell, M.A., Oxford;
John Sydoey Malcolm Beatings, 8.A., Oxford; Rose
Edward Danes, 8.A., Oxford ; and Charles Gurdon Rem.
hall.- On the same day, at • pension of the Honourable
Society of Gray's-inc. Mr. Daniel Abraham Hughes, of
Trinity College, Dublin, the third son of Mr. William
Hughes, late of l'earemount, Dublin, deceased,; Mr. Wil.
liam Hominy, the eldest son of the Right Hon. the Muter
of the Rolls ; and Mr. Lionel Henry Banbury Jones, of St.
Edmund Hall, Oxford, B. A., the only aou of Mr. William
Banbury Jones, of Gray's.ine, were called to the degree of
Barrister-at-law.

THE -fED WIFE MCRDER. Yesterday
morning the inquest on the body of Mrs. Roche, 43 years of
No, was resumed in Cannon-street-road, St. George's•in-
the- Fut. It may be remembered from the former report
of this uses that the deceased had been but a few weeks
married to Patrick Roche, 75 years of age, and of indepen.
dent means. From the sudden death of the woman, and
the appearance presented by the body, it was be.
Hewed she was poisoned. The analysis of the stomach
and intestines had bees entrusted to Dr. Letheby,
who now stated to the commie that he found the
liver much diseased from induration of tisane, and
of a deep yellow colour. It yielded mercury to analy.
sis. The deceased's tongue was' much swollen. Two
of the bottles headed to him contained harmless mixtures.
The third contained the remains of a lotion, in which there
were abundant troms of mercury. Witness was of opinion
that the symptoms arose from the disease of the liver,
aggravated by swallowing the lotion in mistake. The symp-
toms were quite consistent with natural muses in the first
instance. Mercury would Dot have been a proper medicine
for such a disease. The jury retained a verdict that de-
ceased died from natural muses, to wit, induration of the
tissues of the liver, aggravated by the swallowing of a mer-
curial lotion inadvertently and by mistake.
[Advertisement.] TWOFOLD EXTRAORDINARY
rczE MIMED se iloLLoWern PILLS Awn (tsTEYNT
Mr. J. Webb, boot and shoemaker Chapel steel, Callir-
dvevii, Ireland, writes under date January 10, 1803, that
he bad been afflicted for seventeen years with a most
dreadful asthmatic cough and shortness of breath, and
latterly was also subject to be sensations in his limbs,
attended with heavy drowsy feel)ngs, which threatened an
apoplectic fit. In Merin, he consulted the moat skilful of the
profession within many miles of his residence without avail, and
fruitlessly used every means recommended hy friends, till he
heard of the repute or Holloway's remedies, and resolved, with
death staring him In the face, to give them a trial. They km
to•dlately relieved him, and ultimata, cured him.