The Express.
London, England, 1862-01-25 00:00:00

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMO-

NIAL CAUSEB.-JAY. 24.

(Before the Judge Ordinary, Mr. Justice Wightmau, and
Mr. Justice Williams.)
MUDDILY AND (HIDDEN R. TUX ATTORNEY-0113ZRAL AND
PATRICK (CITED To SEE PIOCEIDINGS).—XIW MAL
REFUSED.

Mime Shedder resumed, used at length concluded her ad-
dress in moving for a rehearing. She again warmly de-
fended her father. and pared the court to allow him
another opportunity of setting his character right before
the world, and of regaining those righted which he had been
so long deprived. She stated that in the event of another
trial being granted the cause would be conducted by eminent
nouns'', whose DAUM it wee not at present neeemary to
mention.

Mr. Shedden then followed on the same side.
The Judge-Ordinary said the court were unanimously of
opinion that no sufficient ground had been shown for calling
upon the Attorney-General and the survivor of the parties
cited to show cause why there should not be a rehearing of
the case. The lulus the court had had to try waa a very
simple one, namely, whether the parents of the male Peti-
tioner bad been married before his birth. Few people, how-
ever, who had heard the proceedings of the last three days
would have supposed that the inquiry was merely of that
character. The investigation had been forced upon the court
by • receot act of parliament, and it was one of great difficulty
and complexity. He would merely refer to what Lord
Brougham had said of it in 1854, when the use of "Shedden
and Patrick" was before the House of Lords. The noble
and learned lord, having stated that be did not think then
was any averment of fraud sufficient to call for a reduction
of the suit, added that be could not help e ea
opinion that it was a fortunate circumstance that their
lordships had come to that conclusion, for he could not
imine anything more intolerable than an inquiry
bs when the facts had all taken place more
than sixty years ago, and is another hunts-
Ogre ; where the witnesses, as many of thus as
survived, must necessarily all be poems of advanced yews ;
and white therefore the inquiry mug absolutely be in-
capable of being conducted with any chance of arrivbg at
a satisfactory conclusion. In that opinion he Mk O. QM.
Inn should entirely concur if the evidence had noted upon
parade; but there had 'bobs= a great dad of documentary
y produced on he* ewes. The inquiry had ex-
leaded over many days. and if therefore anything had
bona omitted by saddest or ailatake there had been ample
LP.=ill of umaiisag tin carer. Tlrkr:ot ILPPbca•
proceeded partly apes the ',big bad
okaadylien gins. mad paaVy spas ivairas alidavlia TN&
bed slasablaa taadiroklio &aided wbelisribe mot scald
=Vbare raoalved Urea Wises, soma at am havlog
ans so lately aa Nowallar teat; sad at Nam It WI
unit valid on the other olds I. answer es wUndlaa,
It ward abeam the ordinary rake which wavaead 4 West-

minder HalL Their lordships had nevertheless allowed
the affidavits to be brought in and to be commented upon ;
but those affidavits and those comment. had not in the
slightest degree shaken the coniblebor %hick he felt in the
correctness of the decision to which the court had already
some. He still continued of opinion that the parents a/ the
male petitioner ware not waned before be was born ; and
therefore be (Sir C. Cromwell) could not consent to a role
nisi fur a rehearing of the cause.
Mr. Justice Wightman and Mr. Justice Williams 0011-
aurring,
The application was refused.
DICLI2IB V. DICKENS.

The respondent, who had been attached for non•peyment
of the permanent alimony awarded in the suit brought
against him by his wife for a judicial separation, on the
ground of adultery, was brought up in cutody, and
Oa the motion of Mr. Aspland,
air C. Cromwell granted another attachment against him
for non-payment of the taxed oasts of the suit, and for fur-
ther arrears of alimony.