The Express.
London, England, 1863-12-10 00:00:00

_-11:1AVY DAMAGE!.

The Queen's Advocate. Mr. Anderson, Q.C., and Dr.
Tristram, for the petitioner ; Mr. tkejeant dime and Dr.
Wanthey for the coreepoodent.
This was• petition filed by Mr. Alexander Henry Aber-
crombie Hamilton against his wife, Sophia Anne Ade-
laide Hamilton, and John Wilson Remington, of Itookbeare,
Devon, against whom he laid his damages in the sum of
10,001.0. The respondents did not appear ; but the co-
na ent denied the adultery.
Cdelle was one of a Tiny distressing character. The
petitioner was • gentleman residing at Millbrook, near
Exeter. On the 19th of September, 1864, he married in
Scotland a daughter of the late Sir Robert Abercrombie. At
that time he was about 25 years of age, and his wife about
two years younger. They bed every prospect of leading a
happy life together, and in fait nothing could be more ate°.
Ronnie than their intercourse had uniformly appeared to
be. In fact the husband had never dreamed of disagree-
ment till the respondent bad actuall eloped. They had
two sons' one born in 1855 and the other In the following year.
There had likewise been • third whose paternity was doubt-
ful. The co-respondent wan also a gentleman in Devonshire,
and he made the acquaintance of the parties in 1858.
A clandestine intimacy afterwards sprang up between the
respondents, and on the 18th of October, 1862, Mrs. Hamil-
ton left home, as she maid, to visit her anat. TOO first in-
timation which her husband received of her misconduct was
conveyed to him in the following letter, which she sent him
under cover to his sister, Miss Hamilton :—" The days I
have pared alone since you left this have made me think
more, and consider how much I am wronging you in con-
tinuing to deceive you as I have done ' • for you can be but
little aware how ninth I have injured you ; and the only
reparation I can mate (greatly as it grieves me to wound
you, and which name also has prevented my owning it
sooner) is to relieve you of one who is no longer worthy
of being your wife ; and for whom, by the time
you receive this, you can no longer entertain either
affection or esteem. You must be aware that loving my
children as I do, it can be no small struggle to own this arid
be parted from them, but I can no longer continue with this
on my mind, and I feel that they ought to be under better
guidance than mine. When time has worn down the edge
of sorrow, you will, I trust, have a happier home than I
have ever made yon ; and all 'implore of you now is not to
utterly curse one whom all the world will condemn, and who
is in much distress of heart.—Yount, S. A. H." The husband
was utterly prostrated by a blow so usexpected. He com-
municated with his brothers.in-law, and they inserted an
advertisement in the newspaper which caused her to return
to Millbrook. She was detained till her brothers came, and
she left her husband's house with them for ever.
Mr. Anderson, in proof of the marriage, put in a certi-
ficate, and contended that the ordinary course of producing
a witness present at the ceremony, and a Scotch advocate
to state the local law, when the marriage had been con-
tracted north of the Tweed, was unnecessary.
A gentleman who was present at the wedding was then
called. It was solemotted by an episcopal an clergyman
after banns published is the pariah church.
Mr. William Clulow Sim—l am a brother-in-law of the
petitioner. I first made the acquaintance of the respondents
on my return from India in 1855. I lived in the some
house with them till I west back to India in the following
year. I returned home once more in 1860, end I resided
about • mile and a half from Millbrook. They lived on
terms of great kindness end affection. Mr. Remington
lived with his mother about nine miles off. I
remember going to a sea place called Burnham.
Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton went to the same place!
inHs:atilt:la's mister was with them. This was
October, 1862. (The witness ideutified the letter already
gives.) Ou the 18th of October I met Mrs. Hamilton at
Highbridmi station. I handed her into her carriage, and
said to her, " Well, Sophy, where are you going today!"
She said she was going to bar aunt's at Shrivenham. I saw
Mr. Hamilton no the following Monday, the 20th, and I
gave him the letter. We came to London, and remained
there till Saturday, trying to discover where Mrs. Hamilton
was. I had been to Shrivenham on the previous Sunday, and
found that she was not there. Mr. Hamilton returned at
the sad of the week to Millbrook. I went to Cardiff, and
found that the respondent bad been at the Cardiff Arms. I
followed her to Tenby, but did not find her. Au adver-
tisement was then inserted, stating that one of her children
was ill, and requesting her by her initials to return. On
the 26th I heard that she had come back to Millbrook.
On the following morning her brothers, Sir George
Abercrombie and Mr. Abercrombie, came, and she
left with them. I afterwards saw her walking
in the Green-park with Mr. Remington. I had
previously seen her at Guildford, where sue was staying
with her brother. I took down witnesses from Cardiff
and Tenby to identify her. I saw Mr. Remington at Car.
duff passing as Mr. RauwelL I told him that he was pass-
ing under a false name. and that he was really Mr. Re-
mington, of Rockbearekonse. He made no answer. 1
took with me • photograph of the co-respondent which
had been found in Urn. Hamilton's bag when she returned
to Millbrook, and I showed it to the servants at Cardiff and
Tenby.
Mr. Follett, a gentleman living sear Mr. Hamilton's, also
spoke to the excellent terms on which the petitioner and
respondent bad lived.
• 0- 'reline Barnard, a servant, atNo. 18, at Old Burlington-
; • street, where Mr. Remington had lodged, proved that the
1 respondent had been In the habit at visiting there, sad bad
passed as bis wife.
• Elizabeth Diamond, the housekeeper at Ildibrook, said
that Mr. Remington used to visit at her master's. He was
• now about 30 or 32 years of age.
John M'Andrew proved the adultery at Cardiff.
Mr. Jury, • eurveyor, who acted as agent to Mr. Rowing-
ton for his peoperty in Doirgate-hill, was called to &pomp to
' the co-reepoertest's means.
Mr. Seder* Shoe objected to the evidesee, but he we-
tossed that he hardly knew why. (laughter.)
Witness said the 00-regadnet lied • range of buildings
let oat es ehambers, sad seeteolas a aro reseal of 82W.