The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-17 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in B Loco. —(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock and
Baron Bramwell, Chappell, and Pigott.)
MILLER V. sIIKE.—BETTING MEN.
. .

This action was brought by a commission agent connected
with the turf, to recover from the defendant, who kept
betting booths at different races, • sum of rag,
which he swore he lent him upon Epsom
Downs on the Oaks Day. The plaintiff gave a very
circumstantial account of the truer/action, but the defendant
positively denied that he asked for the loan or received the
money. The trial took place at Cambridge before Mr. Baron
Bramwell, when the jury believed the defendant's story,
and gave • verdict for him. During the present term
Mr. Keane, C., on behalf of the plaintiff. obtained •
rule to set aside the verdict sod for • new trial, and it
now came on for argument. It appeared from the plaintiff's
affidavits that he gave the money to the defendant in notes,
but took no receipt, and that some of these Dotal had been
traced to • person named Gray, who said he had obtained
them from the defendant the day after the Oaks, but re-
fused to make an affidavit to that effect, on the ground that
it was • transaction between betting man, who settled their
disputes without recourse to law.
Mr. Metcalfe, on behalf of the defendant, showed cause
against the rule, and submitted that the plaintiff ought to
have given this evidence as to the notes at trial, and that,
having omitted to do so, the defendant ought not to be ex-
posed to the risk and expense of • new trial.
The Lord Chief Baron—Does Gray make an affidavit on
the part of the defendant ?
Mr. Metcalfe—He makes an affidavit on neither side.

Mr. Keane said he could have applied to one of their
lordships to compel him to make an affidavit, but the
plaintiff allowed the four days allowed by the court for
that purpose to pan by without taking any steps in the
matter.

Mr. Baron Bramwell—Do von, Mr. Metcalfe, in your
affidavits, give any explanation of this m►tter as to the
notes?

Mr. Metcalfe rid he did cot.

The Court said that under those circumstances they must
make rule for a new trial absolute—the costs to abide the
event.
Rule absolute.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
CODRINGTON P. CODRLNGTOX AND •'DIRBON.

I This extraordinary case, of which • fall summary will
be found on page 1, was resumed this morning.
Mrs. Watson was ernes-examined by the Queen's Advo-
I cat& She said—My husband is • clergyman, but he has no
I benefice at present. The plan produced, showing the posi-
tion of Admiral Codrineton's house and my husband's at
Malts, is correct. I made the admiral's acquaintance in
July, 1841. My husband had made • cruise with Captain,
now Admiral, Glasse to Beyrout ; and while he was away I
met Admiral Codrington at the home of • Meted,
Major and Mrs. Armstrong. Mrs. extrinsic° was
not present, and I did not see her till August.
1 met her at the house of Mrs. Coro°, • lady who
was in suffering and distress. My husband had applied to
the admiral for •mistance for her ; and Mrs. Codrington
came to see her. Mrs. Codrington and I both watched with
her. We watched together wirers' times. While she was
there Colonel Gower came to the house. I saw him there.
Colonel and dire. Mitford also came very oft**. They
came to see Mrs. Oodrington and myself. The very first
night Mn. Codrington came, she and I had an explanation.
There bad been no quarrel. I did not approve of Colonel
Gower's coming in the middle of the night, and I told her
so. We had no quotrel about • nurse, Emma —.
I never heard of her. There was no nurse. I
had no qtisrrel with Mrs. Clodrington. I may said
it was not becoming after our husbands had left that
Colonel Gower should come, and I said I would not allow
I it. She very kindly told me that she would beg him not to
come. We stayed with Mrs. Coxon nine or ten days, after
which she went to Eogland. I believe we first went to
Mrs. Coxon's on the 17th of August. It was two or three
days after then that the respondent told me she must go
out and speak to Lieut. Mildmay. On the night when
the respondent stated that Lienteneat kft'dmay had made
some kind of attempt upon her, she said that her heablead
and Miss Horn had been present, I do not recollect when
or where she made that statement to me ; nor can I tell
when or where she told me, but she awoke and found Lieu.
ten►nt Mildmay standing by her. I can only say that it was
before the lied of October. I recollect it was on the
30th of November, 1661, that Mn. Codriogton
made the confession to me of having committed
adultery in a lane, bemuse I made • memoran-
dum of it is a pocket-handkerchief. I first made
• statement on the subject in this box. I never
told anyone I had such a statement to make. Ad.
miral Codrington 's solicitor asked me questions after the
petition Wan filet I do not know when it was filed;
but really, as regards these iorenaic terms, I may
easily make mistakes. I told the solicitor that I could
cot make any statement. " Why not ?" said he. "Be-
ll muse I have given a promise." "But your oath will re-
lease you from that promise." "When the oath is adrainis.
tared it shall release me, but I will not speak before.'
(Faint applause.) I was asked the question several times,
but I always gave that answer. I should say that she arrived
at our house at from 8 to half-past 8 on the night she
mado the confession. She wait to my bedroom sod sent
for me. I could not go to her, and so she came into the
drawing-room. We hail tea and then we went into my
bedroom. There were two lanes ; but neither was • cal-de-
em One of them had • few houses in it, but the other had
only two or three farms. I cannot tell whether the lanes
were likely to be frequented by persons at about
o'clock, but I should say they would rot. It would have
taken Mrs. Codrington nearly an hour to come to our house
I by the route she described to me. After this confession I
continued to visit her for a short time. My renewed inti-
macy with her did not last more than • mouth at the out-
side. I did not subscribe myself, "Always her affectionate
friend;" certainly not [A letter was handed to the witness.
It was dated May 5, '62, and was so subar-iibed.] I am
not aware that I invited her to tea on my birthday in July,
1862. (Au invitation was put in, but there was so date in
it.] I do not know whether that was in 1862: but on
reflection I think it must have been in that year. I do not
know whether she came. My impression was that it was
after the scene I have described, and when she bad expressed
herself desirous to be friends again. [A letter of condolence
to Mrs. Codrington on the death of her mother, and offering
to call ea her, was also put in.] On the 15th of February,
1863, 1 invited her to dinner, to meet a large party of
friends, the Printers of Leiningen, and other ladies sad
gentlemen, bin principally the oaken of the
23rd She sent as apology, stating that she had
an engagement. She was invited to our house
up to the last ; but she continually refused to come.
The admiral frequently came. He pained most Sunday
evenings with us. He 000tinually oceivereed with me about
his wife, and he told my husband and we a pest part of the
history of his married life. This was not • matter of offence
to Mrs. Codrington ; on the contrary, she regoodod him to

•
do so. She wished me to speak to him on the wk..
her mailed life, but I declined to do so. I wrote t
admiral lind his wife on the subject of Mrs. Smith's de,,th
September, 1862. The respondent was always rather atr.•
regent in her mode of expression—always atldicte I to
domontade. Sometimes I did not believe her otter:lt:A,
I thought them extravagant, bat I did not think her i.....i
was w►odering. I have never thought, or ,aid,
written, that her mind was wandering. I am
in the least aware that it was ever my ./
that she was more suffering than sinning. lam tot a
that 1 ever thought it would have been a ,tonsulat:
Mrs. Smith on her death bed to know that her :
was not responsible for the extravagance of her state::.• .t..
It certainly was not ray opinion that the re,p‘e..
was of a wandering mind. I remember or.t,
on the sofa, and Mrs. Codringtou was a I tt.
the ground. My husband and Admiral Codrit;t,
also in the room. She talked en immense amount f
same, but she did not convince me that she was of
deritig mind. 1 hoped it, for I would rather have t"

that of her than worse. She talked about roy
a great deal of nonsense. I had oak!, I
carefully, for I did everything in my power to %are •
was not my belief that she was irresponsible for
I cannot say that the character of things she sa..l t
such that I should not like to put them on paper.
not the slightest recollection that I ever wrote to A . ~!
Codrington anything to the effect suggested. My
first knew a year ago of the quarrel f t
I had with the respondent in July, lx.r.z. I 1 1 •
tell him before, because he was iu an ex !
delicate state of health, and I had I. cr'.. •
keep from him everything of an excAirg
The discussion began by my telling her that a la.ly h,:
formed me she was saying unkind things about me .r.
admiral. I did not ask her the reason of her c I. . .
wards me; for in point of fact we had been mut
I was not excited or hysterical, but I was ex. t,s, -,.'..
pant. After we had oonversed we went to lunch. L.

admiral was then present. The admiral did not six • .
spoodent what was the matter. I began the •
with him myself. Nothing was said about an hone,. . ,
not wanting a ticket of virtue. The admiral r. :
respondent to write the denial I asked of her. ILe :
and I afterwards went away in a *goLdol
respondent to follow: The admiral did not tbr, •
respondent if she would not write the denial I
paper produced is in the admiral's handwnting.
know that he required his wife to write a copy of thy. •• • :
to me. I never heard of it until floe
We did not leave Malta suddenly. We left
family reasons, and principally because we could
house suitable for the summer months. We ! :a
England in June or July, 1853. Nihon yr..;
we went to my sister at Hamptoncourt
Admiral Codrington the next day. I have 4 t
slightest recollection whether I spoke to him
Codrington on that occasion. He lived at M
which is close by, and I saw him constantly at L .
Lady Bouchier's, in the Palace. We were con
lug about his trials with his wife. I think I 4
ings were first talked of about the time lot that i• r
Colonel Anderson, in November. He had spoken • a 7.
about a separation before then. We had had fry,
eruptions about her misconduct—that is to say, 6t4
her gay frivolous life. I had spoken : talc
in 1851 about her debts, she barii,4 trade tt
a test of my friendship that I shor.ll I. se;
and then we went fully into his doti.•,•:: trial,.
I never talked to him of the respondent's t, nu
the strongest sense of the term, till November , A L,
frequently spoke to me and my husband about her
The question of her debts opened up tho further 1 ititioa
of his domestic sorrows, and he unburdened b ebe eat to
as to a brother and sister. Impropriety is to) atr mg a ter.:
to apply to what he complained of. I would rather cal: it
frivolity, or what is termed flirting. (A laugh.) I tare
had frequent conversations with Admiral Codringtoo aiicnt
the letter marked " Lilian "—it was opened in my presence.
Ile never told me that he had received a letter fro% M'a
Mould totally exculpating Lis wife. Ho told me thit be
believed Mrs. Mould to be the waiter of :hat letter,
and also that be bad never received any •Aial•
patory letter from her. He wrote to me and
my husband about Mrs. Mould a few weeks ago. The
day before yesterday be told me and my husband that it
was a wicked fabrication that be had ever received any It:ter
from her. I asked Mr. Mildmay to one of my {..:.
ties. I also asked Mn. Codrington. Tbat was a fit
days previous to the disclosure which she made ti
He had called at Admiralty-house while I was tic re, and
Mrs. Codrington spoke so much to him about my party that
I was obliged Co ask hint to join it. I certainly never asked
him after Mrs. Codrington's confeesion. I
children of Mrs. Codrington walking with their governers,
Mn. Lawless, on or about the :At of November, They
were taken from her on the sth of November ;•and I belie,'
she has not seen them since.

Re-examined by Mr. Bovill—My sister, Mrs. Bur, et
Watson, is the widow of a naval °Mao, and has apatemvato
assigned to bar at Hampton Court. My husband his
brother married me and my sister. Lady Bouchier. tl:e
admiral's sister, is likewise the widow of • naval orti:cr. Ina
has apartments at Hampton Court. We were all r iati•
mate together—in fact, like brothers and sisters. The
scrap of paper put in, written by Admiral Codrington, is sot
a oopy of the letter the respondent sent me. The letter I te.
solved could not have been dictated by the admiral, because
he went away with me, and did not see ber again till after
it was not to me.

Louise Gtollanme, who wee cook io the sea .:a of Mrs.
Watson, at Malta, and her sister, who was also in the a©o

service. deposed to incidents they had a itnessel on the
occasions of Mrs. Codrington's visits.
[The case was proceeding when oar report left. I

THE FOLIOS COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)