The Express.
London, England, 1864-03-05 00:00:00

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE,
MAIM 4.
(Were the Judge Ordinary.)
WODILIOUSI V. WODZEOUSI AND FARROW (DECEASED).
(Concluded tom yesterday's Express).
Amelia Vereet, housekeeper to Mr. Farrow, proved that
when the respondent mme to the house on business she
sew witness, and not Mr. Farrow. Had never seen Mr.
Yarrow in the slightest degree miscooduct himself be her.
UM the girl Bertha quite well. She never made any
I complaint to witness about Mrs. Wodebouse's behaviour.
! Would not believe Bertha on her oath. She was dim:Maud
the second time in coesequenoe of a falsehood she had told
Mr. Farrow. She told witness that the reason she was
pia( to be married was because she we. in the family way.
Orces-eramieed—Her muter knew well that Baths was
a most abandoned liar. Had heard him tell her that she
had been bon under a most nalecky star, and that she was
doomed to destructios bemuse she was such • liar.
(Laughter.) Weald swear that the respondent had never
been in Mr. Farrow's room after her marriage. Never
buy that Mary !login took in • glass for her to have
wine with him. Mary Huggins war a very good girl.
Reexamined—Bertha used to say that Mr. Farrow had
been as excellent muter, and that he had, in fact, been a
father and mother to her. When she came back after she
had left the first time, Yellop said to witness, "Here's
Bertha, and now we shall have her lies spin. She Est%
we whom she gets turned sway with her lies."
Mr. George Rodwell, a surgeon, remising at ImMon,
about two miles from Needham, bad attended Mr. Farrow
for the last seven or eight years of his life. Knew Ma.
Wed/house. She was seriously ill after her second confios-
meat. Recollected her husband to ring her. He said that
he thought it would be better to pan from her on account
of the state of her health. Re made no charge 'pion her.
Mr. Farrow had repeatedly asked witness to see poor persons
who were sick In his parish..

Mr. Copeland (executor to Mr. Farrow) said ark Berths
Bake' father died from the effects of an widest. On hie
deathbed be begged Mr. Farrow to take care of his chil-
dren, and Mr. Farrow agreed to do so. Yellen told wit-
ness that he had never men scything improper between the
risliocaaws- He stmorsola said to +hoer, " 1 Wye told
two stories about Mr. Farrow, women irlooild I stick to!
Told him to stick to the truth.

Croos-examined—Mr. Workhouse had complained to the
board of guardians that witness, while magistrates' clerk
sad attorney to Mr. Farrow, had employed counsel against
hint in support of a charge the board had made against him
tinder the Vagrant Aota for letting bleeds and child become
chargeable to the parish. Attornies in Norwich were ern-
ployed in consequence of • communication mitosis had made to
them. One of them was witness's son. They retained counsel,
sad hie fee wee paid out of monies belonging to Mr. Farrow's
estate. Was not muting this case by money, and did not
know by whom the expenses of the respondent were to be
paid. Did not know whether he expected to be called upon
for any payment. (A laugh.) Believed that Mr. Farrow's
eon would defray any expenses that might be necessary to
vindicate his poor fathers memory.
Whorl's) Page, whose maiden name was Yellop, had
been in the employ of Br. Farrow, sod had never seen any
impropriety between the respondents.
Cron-examined—lied met with • little misfortune, and
left to be confined._ _
_

ite:eriminecilr. Farrow was never guilty of anything
wrong to witness.
Henry Charley had had the hole through which Yellop
said he had own the respondente in the barn pointed out to
him. The hole was 7 feet 2 inches from the pound. The
moulding was about three feet from the ground, and it
was all broken away below the bole. The moulding was not
above two inches broad when it was perfect. Should say
that • boy could not climb up to the bole. The wall was
18 inches thick, and the hole was 21 inches by 2. No part
of the barn floor could be seen through it.
A very carefully constructed model of the farm wu put
in and proved ; and a letter was read which the petitioner
bad written to the co-respoodeet. In it he oomplaine4 of
the conduct of his niother.in.law, which he said had led to
his quarrel with his wife, and he expressed the gratitude
which he felt towards Mr. Farrow for the kindness he had
shown him.

The learned counsel then addressed the jury for their re-
spective client.
Sir J. Wilde. in eummieg up, took °cowries to remark
upon the conduct of the co-respondent's executor in relation
to the charge which he had caused to be preferred against
the petitioner.
The jury, after about ten minutes' de/iberation, found a
verdict for the respondent.