The Express.
London, England, 1864-08-03 00:00:00

gfte erPrelitS.

ad, aellarimeabs bibia-daT tar " Tbsiapiare Landes limbo
hoer. am. be ad OM °Oak lb, Ileawbbaliesi by Teo
(dock aa tM day et wkueetlß

PZTNCW I.

TEM it HORN TO itOOIT LUCK. Mr. D. Murray.
And THE STR OF LONDON. Mews. J. W. Lay, David
Fisher. D. Murray, I. Nelson. H. toniater. and H. Mellon :
Mn H. Marston, Mimes Barnett sad °winos

sarrprwu,

TIM STUMM THEfiLINII OF DEIHL - Stinging by
Meedames Loset4Al, Constance, sad Mr. H. Baker.—Aad THE
GREEN HILLS OF THE FAH WET; or, THE INDIAN
HUNTICEss.

MON warn AT LONDON BIIDSL
THIS DAT Moraine, ft. Sim_ Ailarsus. Sk &ha.
To-Hoitatm —Mande& Si, .. ass.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3.

Ir is seldom indeed that any professional lawyer,
least of all any judge on the bench, ventures to
find fault with the existing law, or to declare that
alteration is absolutely necessary. And no doubt
that law must be preeminently mischievous which
all calls down the unanimous disapprobation of the
court, the counsel, and the parties in a cause. From
the time of BENTHAM until the present hour philo-
sophical jurists and law reformers have never ceased
to complain of the anomalies of the law of evidence.
But ex-chancellors, chancellors, and bigotted bar-
risters in Parliament have turned a deaf ear to
such complaints, and have sometimes successfully
mutilated, and sometimes successfully resisted those
changes in the law which have from time to time
been proposed. At length, however, matters seem
to have reached a criais. A gross injustice is
likely to be perpetrated ; and this injustice will
be the necessary result of the application of the
existing laws of evidence. Such at least is the
avowed opinion of that excellent lawyer Sir JAMES
WILDS, the Judge Ordinary of the Divorce Court ;
of Sir ROBERT PHILLINORE, the Queen's Advo-
cate ; and of other eminent ominseL
There is a suit now in the Divorce Court in
which Vice-Admiral CODRINGTON is the petitioner,
Mrs. CODETNOTON the respondent, and Colonel
ANDERSON, of the 22nd Regiment, the co-
respondent. According to the ordinary rule,
the Admiral was obliged to furnish particulars
of the acts complained of in order to enable the
advisers of Mrs. CODEINOTON to meet the charges'
thus made. These particulars contained a charge
against Lieutenant littinstsv, and the soene of
adultery with him was laid at three places in
Malta, where the Admiral was in command—the
Admiral's gondola, the Admiral's house, and at
Cormayeur. Of course Mrs. CODRINOTON and her
advisers supposed that these were the only ems in
which it could be anticipated that any act of im-
propriety with Lieutenant MILDMAY would be
alleged against her. To meet these cases the Court
and the Admiral were entitled to expect that the lady
would be prepared. But the lady and her advisers
found themselves on Saturday in a serious difficulty.
One of the chief witnesses against Mrs. Comuso-
TON was Mrs. WATSON, the wife of a clergyman,
who had been on very intimate terms with the
Admiral and his wife whilst they were at Malta.
Indeed Mrs. WareoN we, the confidential friend of
Mrs. CODKINGTON, and was the depositary of almost
all her secrets. The two ladies had had a bitter
quarrel ; in fact, Mrs. CODIILNOTON had accused
Mrs. WATSON of being too familiar with the Ad-
miral. But, notwithstanding this quarrel, Mrs.
WATSON religiously kept her promise not to divulge
certain facts which Mrs. CODRINGTON had told her
friend under a promise of secrecy—until last
Saturdsy morning, at Westminster. Mrs.
WATSON then said : "At a subsequent period
" she (Mrs. CODRINGTON) made another
" communication to me. That communication
" hal never yet passed my lips, as she made
" me give her an unconscious promise not to
" repeat it. Nom she has sulipeenaed MC to this
" court lam r. leased front my promise, and lam
" l,,,und to sprat. the truth." Mrs. WATSON then
proceeded to explain that on the evening of the
13th of November, 1861, she had an interview
in her own house at Malta alone with Mrs. COD.
RING[ON. "AS soon Si Mr. WATSON was out of
" the room, MTS. CODIUNOTON burst out into
" violent agitation and said that the climax of
" evil had arrived." In short, according to Mrs.
Ws-rsoN, the lady made confession of as act of
adultery with Lieutenant MILDNAY a few minutes
before they met.

Now, if Mrs. \Versos is to be believed, the case
of the respondent is practically closed. Her counsel
distinctly admit that unless they can shake the
evidence of Mrs. Warsom on this point they must
abandon the cue. But then they insist they
had no notice that evidence on such a point'
would be produced. Mrs. Warsos never disclosed
that part of her evidence until she appeared in
the witness-box on Saturday ; so that the alleged
fact was not known even to Admiral CODRTNGTON
or to his advisers until that day. Mrs. COMILNGTON
insists through her counsel that there is not a
word of truth in Mrs. War3ox's statements, and
demands time to produce evidence in support
of her denial. Adjournments of a cause under
trial are extremely inconvenient, and therefore
extremely rare. But, Si Sir JAWZIS WILDS said,
there are occasions when the Court is obliged to
resort to an adjournment in order to do even-
handed justice. And in such a case as this it is
the only course possible. The cause has therefore
been adjourned until November, and a commission
has been issued for the examination of witnesses
at Malta.

Now what witness will be able to produce better
evidence than Mrs. CODRINGION herself 1 But she
is respondent—she is a party to the suit, and
therefore, according to the rules of evidence,
she cannot be put into the witness box. It
is difficult to conceive a law more absurd or
more unjust. The witness, Mrs. Wsrsow, may
produce the most damning proof of guilt against
Mrs. CODRINITTON—she may state that Mrs.
CUDRINUTOR distinctly confessed to her " the