The Express.
London, England, 1858-03-03 00:00:00

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAUl3llB.—Maaim t
(Bake* the Judge Otdiaary.)
HOPI O. HOP3.-A HOTEL POINT.

Is 1868 Mn. Adrian John Hope intaituted in the Cowie-
tory Court of London a suit of Evora, by reason of adultery
and enmity. To this Mr. Hope replied by cloing the
analtyr and setting up a recriminatory plea as to the adul-
tery. Dr. Luabington, having beard the cost, absolved Mr.
Bops of the cruelty, and diamimed both putts, as beMg,
with regard to the other charge, in pari daileto. Ia 1867
Mn. Hope again applied to the court in order to obtain re-
stitution of her conjugal rights; and Mr. Hope having con-
lewd the marriage, she brought in an allegation of enmities
In which she Mated her husband's income at 40,000=
and prayed that alimony might be granted her
lite. Mr. Hope then asserted an allegation to the
easel that be had lived chastely aims the dismissal
of the divorce suit, whereas his wih had continued in
ea improper mode of life ; and he prayed that he might on
that groom be dierahsed. The mass was tally argued, but be-
fore ilis judgment amid be delivend the old wort cowed to
mist_ ; es both parties were not agreed to Mail% Dr.
Lesldngloils sentence in writing, Use *suss also lensed. Mn.
Hope now revived her emit for restitution, and pleaded mar-
=cohabitation, birth of eladrws, and &Nedra by bar
Mr. Hope else evsewed his pie% bat the Debit
=be argued wee, whether Mn. Hope, caving lsen
ow the ground of adultery, could again appear in
tlds court ?

Dr. T;riss, Q.
and Dr. Spinks, on behalf of Kte. H
that It must be decidedope,
admitted that the point,
not u raised was a perfectly new one, end
preceden upon
aiple. The Divorce Act directedpon the court t,
tobut determine suprin.ch
cease in conformity with the ancient preetke—in other
wade by the old canon law. Now the canon law, es laid
down n Houghton, Avid's, Sanchez, and other monist%
admitted what our called oompensatio critainis"—namely,
that the offence of one of the guilty parties was a sufficient
compensation for the inj be eustained by the fault of the
other. The learned ooaasel contended, therefore, that Mrs.
Hops still retained her right to demand from her Maimed a
home in his house.

Dr. 13 hillLTore: Q.C., and Dr. Deane Q.C., contra, urged
that the canon law was not wholly applicable to the present
owe, the circumstances of modern life being wholly dis-
similar from those contemplated in the old decretals.
Formerly the parties might be placed under a peni-
tential discipline, and after they had received absolution,
their actual cohabitation could be compelled by spiritual am-
foaci
sures ; whereon there were now no means of en coha-
bitation at all. In conformity, therefore, with the: piss
kid down by Dr. Luthington, in his able and -known
judgment of " Proctor and Proctor," the present nee could
not be decided by a simple reference to the canon law. More-
over, the courts of common law had virtually determined cases
of a similar character. Thus the Court of Queen's Bench had
bald that a husband was no longer liable to maintain hie wife
who had committed adultery, even when ha had driven her
from his home in the first instance by his own cruelty and
adultery (6 Term Reports, 603, and 1 lam. and Ad. 227).
The learned counsel contended, therefore, that the court
ought to declare that Mn. Hope had no " persona standi"
Ddae it.
Dr. Twin having replied,
The learned Judge reserved his judgment.