The Express.
London, England, 1859-02-07 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 7, 1859.

teemed oeussel hal said, that condonation wee en act of the
mind, and that mental a: te were m inifested by words.
Neverthekse, an act of condonation could not be held to
have been complete unless the words relied upon were fol-
lowed up by the reinstate meet of the sinning partv in the
petition she had lost. In hie (the noble lord's) oink& no
verbal condonation could be held sufficient to bar a suit for •
divorce nukes it wee secolopm.ed by ronjugel cohabitation ;
In the cam of .Campbell v. Campbell (1 Deane, 228), Dr.
Lashio gton expressly /aid that " condom a leaves connubial in-
tercourse with hall knowledge of the facts." At the mune time,
it must be observed that the language of the Judge Ordinary
with mad to a wife's restoration did not istoesearily imply
that the renewed cohabited= man be accompanied with all the
circumstances that hat formerly eurmunded it. She must again
live with her husband as a wife, although it might be as a
degraded one—in feet the degree to which aim might be
rwadmitted to her former privileges did not at all outer into
the question. The Judge Ordinary was quite correct when
he said that to constitute ondonatien the forgiveness most
not fell short of complete teems illation, and that there
moat be fall proof of the wife's restoration to her conjugal
rights. The evidence fully jastilkd the decision to which
the jury had C9OlO, and the rule, therefore, ought to to dis-
charged.
The other judges concurred.
The rule was then discharged, and the court having pro-
scanted for the:dimolutlon, directed Mr. Keats to settle 1601.
• year upon the respondent during his life-time, provided that
she ,'gave up the right to dispose at his death of 2,0001.,
which had been secured to her by her marriage eettlemeat.
The court also ordered that the settlement should mean In
force se to her life Internet In 10,0001. after his death fa the
event of his predecease. The 1601. was to be pia bring
good behaviour, but was not to cries on her marrying again.
The 1,0001. in which the jury had amend the damages
against Montezuma was to be applied to the payment of the
coats, Out of the divorcee, and then of Mr. Keats.

PEALE V. BEALE ♦ND wuzrrax.

The petitioner wu a surgeon, and wu married in 1862. In
1856 he and Wm site became acquainted with the stores -
dent, and his suspicions having afterwards beosmtJasdted,
ha made inquhies, which resulted in the that the
paramours had slept together at the Alherh, &MOM
IN%
Tho court pronouncrd for the dissolution of the =Meg*,
with costs.

ASTROPI P. AStROPE.
This cow was adjourned for further evitienoe.
SMITH V. SMITH.

This was a suit for a diasolution of manias*, promoted by
the wife against her husbead, on the ground of adultery,
coupled with desertion. The evidence elbowed that the
respondent had treated his wife exceedingly ill—that ho was
a drunken brute, whothad sold op the forneture, and told his
wife that she might go on the streets for her livrlihool. It
did act appear, however, that the wife had made soy attempt
to renew the cohabitation after her husband had left her.
The Lord Chancellor said that it would lead to very in-
jurious coasequences if the court were to encourage any
laxity of proof. There was nothing in the present case to
show that the doeertion had been against the consent of the
wife, or that the was not in roelety very glad to get rill of her
husband. The court could no., therefore, grant the divorcee
prayed for; but feeling satisfied that they bad power to give
the petitioner east in another form, they would decree •
Judicial aigentirs.