The Express.
London, England, 1862-12-22 00:00:00

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

Dac. 20.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
TOASTER F. FORSTER AND BERRIDOL.—DAMAGES, 5,0001.
(Concluded from Saturday's Express.)
Emma Forster, the daughter of Major Forster, examined
—She came over from India in 1850. Her sister was then
with her. She went to live with her aunt, Mrs. Burmeeter,
in August, 1861. Her father CAMS to see her in March, and
stayed a day. He mentioned Mrs. Ellis's name frequently,
and said they were his fellow-munesgers. He extolled her
beauty. She heard her father say that the Ellises bad gone to
Paris ; sod then he came and stayed a mouth with them. He
received letters from Paris. One day after one had come
for him he said be must go to town. He wanted to go that
rely evening. He said that Mrs. Ellis had returned to Rog-
land. When the Billies came down to Chertsey my father
ordered dinners to be sentin for them from the confectioner's.
He also got a carriage for them from an inn. My father
had some beautifully fine cambric handkerchiefs with
scolloped edges marked "J. E.," which he took away with
him to London. He once brought down a programme of the
Trovalore, and I think he said be had been to the theatre
with Mrs. Ellis. Some petticoats were sent to a washer-
woman at Chertsey for Mrs. Ellis. My father packed them
up for her, sod took them away in his box.
Cross-examined—My father had made all the arrange-
ments to take me and my sister out with him to India. I
went sod saw the cabins. We were to have started on the
15th of September. I left my aunt's and went to my
mother's at Bayswater on the 31st of August. After Mrs.
Ellis came back from Paris my father gave my sister and me
a) watch each which she had purchased for us. I have
seen Mr. Berridge very frequently. I saw him last two
days ego at Ginger's hotel, Westminster, at which we were
skipping. I saw him in the passage. He did not ask for
any ore. I canrot tell whether he saw m mother. Be
has seen my mother in the court. I have seen Mrs.
Affisek at 67, kV impole-street, but I have never spoken to her.
No. 67, is Mr. Lowe's. Ido not know that Mr. MBank
is one of Mr. Lows's clerks. My mother told me afterwards
that it war Mo. Affieck. My mother was at Lowe's on busi-
ness. My father allowed my aunt IW. a-year for the main-
tenance of myself and sister Charlotte.
Re-examined—Ginger's is the hotel where we were stop-
ping during the trial. I did not return with my father to
India because he had ill-treated me so ; bad neglected me so
while he was is this country.
By the Judge-1 first saw Mr. Berridge at Dove's, in
Bloomsbury-square. I also saw him in Heathcote-street.
At this stage of the proceedings the court made its cus-
tomary adjournment for a few minutes. Os its reassembling,
The Queen's Advocate said he had a oommnoication to
make es to the course which he should take upon himself
the responsibility of adopting. He had already intimated
that they had so answer to make with regard to the case
against Mrs. Forster ; but he had been led to believe that be
should be able to lay before the court evidence conclu-
sively establishing a charge of adultery against the peti-
tioner with Mrs. Ellis. He bad listened with the greatest
attention to what had been stated by the witnesses, and he
must admit that it did not so clearly substantiate the
charge as to warrant him in persevering with the defuses.
Although he might think that it did make out a ease
of levity, imprudence, and indiscretion, he could not
say that it would justify
him in causing Serjeant BaUantine
to put Mn. Elbe into the box, as be understood his
learned friend would have done if the defence had been
persisted is. He therefore thonghtit his ditty to take upon
himself the respossibility— and a serious and painful respoe.
sibility it was—of abandooing the charge of adultery against
Ma* Forster.
Mr. Mostegue Smith then addressed the jury in mitigs-
' ties of flamers, contending that the pelittoner had not
afforded his wife proper protection while she was is
Baglasd.

Mr, pary~l Bs.Matins admitted no levity, imprudonoe,
or mieoaadael on the part of his client either with Mrs.
it
Ellis ',anybody site. The defame was • perfectly scanda-
lous ose—ssandalons, in its eoaceptioe, in its details, and
in the way in which it had been sought to be worked
out. Major Forster was first charged with adultery in
India—nit • syllable bad been adduced in proof of that.
Next he was accused of neglect, and conduct towards his
wife conducing to adultery—not • word of evidence to
rapport that. Lastly, there was this shameful accusation
against Mrs. Ellis, which he almost regretted had been
withdrawn • for Mr. and Mrs. Ellis had come all the way
from Gibraltar to vindicate their honour, and were per-
frotly ready. to disprove the calumnies which had bean
uttered against them. The head and front of thin scan.
dalous defence was the on respondent, and he trusted
that the jury would mark their sense of his misoonduct by
awarding exemplary damages against him.
Sir C. Creswell thought the queen's Advocate had done
himself honour in withdrawing the charge Mrs.
Ellis ; but he wished the learned gentleman given them
some explanation as to the failure of the expected evidence
which had induced him to take that course ; for he (the
judge) felt satisfied in his own mind that if counsel had but
fairly known the limited extent of the wretched
evidence that would be placed at their disposal,
they would never have felt justified in promul-
main' such • charge at all. The jury could not
forget the position in which the parties stood to each other.
Here was au officer, past the meridian of life, coming from
India to Europe for the express purpose of instituting
this suit. On board the vessel he had become acquainted
with an invalid brother officer, with a beautiful young wife.
Probably, from them he had received much kindness and
sympathy • and because •• certain degree of familiarity bad
sprung up between them—the most strikiog acts illustrating
which had taken' place uuder tb e very eye of the husband, with
the exception of one which was sought to be established
by the contradictory evidence of the two Bartholomew.—
they were asked to infer that the intimacy was • guilty one;
asked to infer it, too, on evidence which had bees procured
through the instrumentality of the co-respondent's mistress
—a woman who, they had beard, bad been reviled by the
respondent in the coarsest terms, but who now appeared
before them in the capacity of her friend, engaged in getting
up the case for bar defame. It was sot to be supposed that
twelve special jurymen in this enlightened country would
eves for a moment listen to such • tale. The learned judge
then proceeded to sum up the case, remarking that the
fact of Mrs. Forster having lodged and bearded at Dove's
with the co-respondent himself was proof sufficient
that • suitable provision had been made for her
maintenance. The argument applied with still greater
force to her residence in the house in Hesthcot?-street

Either her means must have been ample to have enabled her
to take that house, or she must have been placed there by
the co-respondent ; and in that case it would tend to show
that he bad made use of bin wealth for the purpose of car-
opting her. It was only in that w►y that the jury had any
concern in the property of the 00-respondent ; but it was
considered that where a man was obliged to employ his
wealth in seducing a woman she mos; have required a great
effort on his part to lead her astray, and must therefore
have been so much the more valuable a wife to her husband.
He (Sir C. Criswell) might also remind the jury that
the co-respondent had constantly allowed Hrs. Forster the
use of his brougham, and that the circumstances surrounding
the birth of the child seemed to show that the illicit inter-
course had commenced about the time of her removal to
Heathoote-street.
The jury, after a moment's consideration, found a verdict
for the husband on all the issues, and assessed the damages
in 5,0001. ; whereupon the court made a decree nisi with
costs.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

WESTERN CIRCMT.—TiITIRON, Dac. 20.

(Before Mr. Judie* Ryles.)
Joseph Langley was indicted and charged on the coroner's
inquisition with the manslaughter of his ion, Charles
Langley, on the 6th of December.
Mr. T. W. Saunders conducted the prosecution, sod Mr.
Pridesux the defence.
Te prisoner is the landlord of the George Inn, at Nettle-
bridge, in the parish of fdialsoiner Norton. On the evening
of the day in question a quarrel arose between him and hia
ion, who was about 21 years of age, and after a good deal of
coarse language bad been exchanged between them, the son
struck his father, who thereupon stabbed the deceased in the
abdomen with a clasp knife which be had in his hand at the
time. Both the prisoner and the deceased were the worse for
liquor. After stabbing his son, the prisoner appeared very
much di
stressed, and said, "Oh, I'm afraid you re does for.
You will never hit your poor father any more. I wish some
one would do the same for me." The deceased was attended
by Mr. Gartner. surgeon ; but the wound proved fatal, and
the deceased died on the following Monday morning.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but recommended him
to mery on the greund of the provocation he had received.
His lordship said the recommendation of the jury should
receive consideration, and mused a sentence of six months'
imprisonment with hard labour.