The Express.
London, England, 1858-06-23 00:00:00

Tim Warm% • CONICAL COMMIS& -AN =WAS
EMMA AipillahlrAV:irlfrilflDOW.-Aai
MOWN nom

113018,11.
1d IMO HAT I oamuut. - Led T®IatIAMINIUIIOI Ils. nal Ilza. O. lass.—Opm MAW.

Imo% IIIILAND AB IT ALLMaws Panay Williams
0. J. awkasad.asd lase left; Yea ILWaIIuNNIN KID/.
—OUR Gib. Wm *rear WWWses—ARA LUSBY TIM HALOS.
/IL B. IFIlleas; Lag.—Oselormes

HIGH WATER AT LONDON EREDGI.
r... Dairmoviseilma, t :al ..... --Alfluransa. lot. Oa.

LONDON, WIDNEBDAY, JUNB 23.

A SPECIAL EDITION of the " EXPRESS,"
containing the remits of the day's Rees, is pub-
lished every evening during the Sporting Season, at
six o'clock.

THE decision of the full Court of Divorce on the
point of evidence raised in the minder ow of
ROBINSON v. ROBINSON and Lutz' is of too
mock general interest and importance to be pained
by without notion. It could answer no good par-
pose to dwell at any length on the fact, of this
strange ease. It will be sufficient to remind the
reader that Dr. LANE has been made co-respondent
by Mr. Roznisort, in a, snit by which he seeks to
obtain a dimoltaion of marriage, on the ground of Dr.
LANE'S alleged adultery with his wife. Dr. LANE was
and is the proprietor of a hydropathic establishment,
at Moor-park, in Surrey—the once famous retreat
where Sir Wawa( Turns polished his periods
and improved his apekots. He is a young man of
two-and-thirty, of good position, and, apart from the
present fantsstio charge, of unimpeachable charm-
ter ; married to a lady to whom he appears affeo-
tionately attached. Mrs. ROBINSON, the respondent,
by her own admission, is now five-and-forty ; in her
diary she calls herself plain and unattractive : there
is nothing in the case to show that she has in
this respect done injustice to her own charms.
Of her mental character and deposition she
has drawn a speaking picture in a series
of wild confession which combine the pas.
donate sentimentalism of ROUSSEAU'S " Julia "
with the more sensuous prnriencies of POPE'S
" Eloise." There is no occasion to dwell on
the details of this miserable self-exposure. Enough
that this excitable, romantic, half-crazy senti-
mentalist had conceived a passion for young
LANE : of that there is no doubt. She went
to Moor-park ; she filled her diary with raving
entries which, if taken literally (an absurd process to
apply to such emanations of henry). undemht•aly
seemed compatible with no other theory than that
she had at last persecuted Dr. LANE into consenting
to the gratification of her pamions. Thesis diaries
fell into the husband's hands : he was advised (we
venture to think very ill advised) to make them the
foundation of proceedings for a dissolution of mar-
riage, in which he charged Dr. LANE as his wife's
paramour.

_
Now then comes the important part of the case.
This diary—these self-accusations of this romantic

woman—these inooherent rhapsodies in which she
had gratified a loose imagination by substituting
dreams for realities—formed literally all the evidence
spinet Dr. LANs. A wretched attempt war
indeed, made at furnishing some semblance of corro-
borative proof, but it utterly and ignominiously
broke down. The Court was asked to rein the rising
prospects of this young and meritorious man,—to
wreck the home, and brand the name, and poison
the existence of this affectionate husband—
, solely because a crazy woman, not far off
fifty, had chosen to fall in love with him,
' and indulge herreif with expatiating on the
fancied gratification of an =starched sad hopeless
passion. The Court at once perceived the danger of
giving any weight to such testimony as this, and
admitted that as against Dr. Lens the ease must be
considered as having entirely broken down. The
counsel for Dr. Luis, naturally anxious for the
11 reputation of their client, were not sompletely satis-
fied with this negative result. They wished to put
Dr. LANZ into the witness-box that he might solemnly
land explicitly deny on oath each one of the imputa-
tions which bad been founded on the entries
in Mrs. Roams:es diary. To this it wee
objected that Dr. Lana, as co-respondent in the
divorce snit, was " a party" within the meaning of
the last Evidence Aot (14 and 16 Vie., c. 98), which,
in enabling "parties" to be head lewd/lessee in their
own behalf, had (by the 4th section) expressly ex-
cepted from its operation " any &dim, snit, or pro-
" needing botatulual ha toompoomo of olaitory."
The Court immediately acceded to this objection.
Application was then made to remove the difficulty
thus raised, by allowing Dr. Lane to be dismissed
from the suit, and so qualify him as
a witness. This was the point the Court
took time to oonsid.r. With the exception of
Mr. Justice Wioarman, they have decided against
the application, on the ground that, under the Di-
'YOKO Act of last Session (20 and 21 Vict., c. 86), the
alleged adulterer having onee been made a co-
respondent, no power whatever is given to the
Court to dismiss him from the suit at any subsequent
stage of the proceedings. Once a co-respondent, he
must always remain so, until the snit is terminated
by final judgment, however conclusively his inno-
cence may be made out. As a co-respondent
in a divorce suit is a party, and as the last Evidence
Act does sot enable a party in any suit instituted
•
to consequence of adultery to give evidence, it re-
sults from this view that no no-respondent in a
divorce snit can ever be called as a witness on
either side.

From this •iew /dr. Justice WIGHTMAN dissented,
on grounds which certainly appear strongly founded
on sound reasoning and good sense. This learned
Judge contended that, upon this construction of the
Act, the wife would be placed in a worse position
than she had occupied in the Ecclesiastical Courts
and in the House of Lords, before the Act
passed. Before neither of these tribunals, prior to
the late Act, was the alleged adulterer a party, and
before both of them accordingly his eridenos was
admissible on behalf of the wife. There is on- f