The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-23 00:00:00

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAUBEIII.-JAL 22.

(Before the Judge Ordinary, Mr. Justine Williams, and
Mr. Baron Bnunwall.)

OrPre r. 011,11 AND MM.
This cue was resumed to-day and Dr. Spinks (in the
absence of Mr. lisejeant Pigott, owing to a family affliction)
summed up the evidence for the petitioner, contending
that the proof of the adultery was complete. He denied
that there was anything to substantiate the coveter-plea of
misconduct or anything
coonivauce, which must mean a guilty
winking at a wife's adultery. The plain meaning of the
agreement was that the petitioner should not proud soy
further for a divorce on the ground of the adultery named in
the first petition—not that he should give any permission
for the continuance of his wife's guilty intimacy with the
co-respondent.
Sir C. thessweill Naked the learned counsel if be had ever
met with an lantana, in the emlesiastiaal court, where a
divorce had been granted after a suitor had taken pecuniary
satisfaction for his wife's adultery ?
Dr. Spitnb had sot ; but he did not know that the cue
pat by the learned fudge was like this. To show that his
client had not mitered into any corrupt bargain, be referred
to the stipulation which Mr. Gipps had steadfastly insisted
on, namely—that the allowance to be made the respondent
should be only continued during her good 000 duct.
dir C. Cremirell—Yes, but there are so many unplea-
sant circumstances on both aides. I hardly ever knew one,
in feet, where there were more—but I shall have hereafter
to consider whether that stipulation was prompted by •
desire on Mr. Gipps', part to keep his wife chaste, or
whether it was only made to save his pocket.
Dr. Spinks thought it absurd to suppose that Mr. Gipps
would have consented (as he had done) to give up a third of
his income to keep Mr. Hume's mistress. It was apparent
that the object of the on-respondent was to defeat, by a
miserable trick, the husband's right to a divan, and to re.
Lin Mrs. Gipps without putting himself under any motel
obligation to marry her.
Dr. Tristram denied that the respondent had been guilty
of the least collusion whatever.

The l)ueens Advocate addressed the court for the
co-respondent. He could not deny that them was
evidence of the improper intimacy alleged, but he
contended that no precedent could be found for
such a muse as this. It was, in fact, so contrary to
the spirit of the old law, which utterly refused to allow
the court to be made use of for collateral purposes, or for
any purposes except to seek redid from in intolerable bur-
den, that he should have felt as mach surprise as pain if
soak a precedent could have bees found. The only ass that
bore the slightest shadow to one, was that of " Lovering r.
Levering" t 3, Haggard), where it was held by Lord Stowell
that a husband might forgive his wile, and yet not forfeit
his right to seek • divorce if she abased again, provided that
he had not relaxed that vigilance which a man ought to ex-
ercise under such circumstances. But he was satisfied that
• petitioner would have had very little chasm of spoors
before Lord Stowell if. after receiving 3,0001. from his
wife's paramour to compromise hi suit, he had within
twelve months appeared for • second time before the
court. What steps had Mx. Gipps ever taken to preserve
his wife from • relapse? Literally nothing. The agree-
ment contained no stipulation that she should not ileum to
cohabitation with the co-respondent; and the only thing
that it appeared Mr. Gipps had done with regard to the
respondent was to employ • detective to find out where
she was living. He (Sir R. l'hUlimorti) should be glad
to know what less the most careleas or negligent husband
in the world could have done ? It was very fibs for tfreppe
to assume a high tone of indignsnt morality with to
the interference of Mr. Hume in imaging the tame of the
separation. But the simple answer was, " You have agreed
to take 7,0001." It was only fair that Mr. Hume should I
insist, as be had done, that Mr. Gipps should rotas 2001. I
• year on the respondent, which was a very different thingl
from declining to any out the arrangement. It was abruM
to limpness that the petitioner cared for his wife's adultery.
He had never paid back the 3,C301. which he had received,
aid which would have burnt in the pocket of any mesa
really solicitous about his honour as • husband ; but after
he had learned that his wife had renewed her acquaintance
with the co-respondent, he actually attempted to obtain,
through the instrumentality of the ViorChanoellor, the
remaining 4,0001. The question, therefore, was, whether,
if that suit had succeeded, the present petition would ever
have been preeented. If it were the opinion of the
court that it would not, could anyone doubt that
the object of the snit was not to make use of the
court in the manner in which the legislature had intended
it to be used—namely, to obtain relief for what was felt to
be an intolerable wrong—bat simply to fill the pockets of
the petitioner with the price of his wife's diahooour.
Sir 0. Cromwell said it would be nohow for him very
artfully to look through the papers in this most painful—
be might say, this most disgusting ease. He did not know
bow the blame would ultimately be distributed amongst the
parties ; but he thought that all of them would repent of
having appeared before the public in the way they had.

GLIM= V. GLIIIIIIII LID minas.

This was a gumption as to costs, and
Sir C. Cresswell said that though his power, were auto-
cratic on this point, he should be glad of the assistaoce of
his learned brethren now present.
A decree Mai had been obtained at the mat of the hus-
band, andthe sum which Mr. Giornale had paid in before the
trial to meet his wife's costa had fallen short of the amount
at which they had been taxed by 751. By the practice of
the court the wife's attorney would not be entitled to mo-
ver the bslaoes from the petitimmr.
The Quern's Advocate and Mr. Murray submitted that
that pee was harsh to the wife, and ought to be
Ceder the old law the wife would have bad bee full
costa irrespective of the event of the trial, became their
exact amount could have been ascertained before the bear-
ing. If. therefore, the regilieses istasat• of the probable
amount of the costs proved to be IllToooooll it ought to be
now corrected.

--Mr.ireinlake, Q.C., and Dr. Spiel(' argued in defence of
the existing practice. It was dm: that the defence had
been a mutual owe, for the bill contained a charge for four
cousultatiotes with the 00-respondent, and the result had
been that all the witnemee were subpoenaed in the same of
the wife. It would be eery hard to make an
husband virtually pay the caste of the man that°hadire
honoured him. _ . .

Sir C. Cromwell, haying consulted with Yr. Justice
Williams and Mr. Baron Chappell, said they could cot advise
him to alter bis rule. In the present cue the co-respowdest
had adopted the evidence of the respoodent's witnesses, and
half the expense ought, therefore, to have fallen on him.
The wife's attorney must pay the mete of this application.

THE POLICE COURTS.
GUILDHALL._

William Watson, eTycmag fellow dancribed as a sailor,
who refused his address, was charged before Alderman
Salomon with haring a roll of cloth, which had been 'totem,
in his possemioa.
Yolice-conatable Adams, 214, mid—l was with Rowland,
another officer, about half-past 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon,
when 1 saw the prisoner with three other men in
Newmiteeetreet One of them was onying a large
roll of cloth, and they appeared about to put it
into a cab. I followed them into Skinner-street, and
then asked the nun who was paying the cloth what
he was going to do with it, and he referred
me to the prisouer, and at the mime time threw the roll of
cloth at my legs and knocked me down. He immediately
ran away, and Rowland then secured the prisoner.
Mr. Thos. X•Gregor, a woollen warationamnan, of Cheap-
aide, rid—The roll of cloth produced is my property. It is
a French cloth, and there are between sixty and semoty
yards of it. It was taken from the counter near the door.
I did not min it until the calor tame to tell me he had
(*and it.

fialomone—Wbat is tie vain ,tit
about
N'Osigar—lt ant nap aimaly 141., bat it would sell at
161.

Rowland said—l was with Adams at the time be stopped
tho men with the cloth, mid on taking the primmer ioto cus-
tody be pointed to a home in Sktner+tteet where he maid
his father lived.

Piisooor—No, I said my father had bees there.
Rowland—l took him to the house sad foetid he was Dot
known there, Dor appose of Dame of Watsoe, which
he gave.
Aldernma Solotooos—l should like to know something
more of the primmer, sod I will therefore read him ter s
few days, for some inquiry to be sods with record to hie
character.

WORSHIP-STREET.
John Ryan. 32, dasoribios himself u a oabioet.maker,
was charged with violsotly araahlag aad wounding Ell a
Taylor.
Complaisant, who is aa wafortarto wows., aid—lasi
night I visa& t. bar of this Crosby Had pablie-bouse is