The Express.
London, England, 1861-11-13 00:00:00

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAUSES.
Before the Judge OnHoary, Mr. Justice Keating, and Mr.
Bayou Wilde.)

The court commenced its sittings to-day. There are 86
causes for trial, of which, however, several are part heard.
The list List year was nearly twice as long.

HILL V. HILL.

This was an appeal against a decision of Sir C. Cresswel,
in • suit of judicial separation.
Dr. Tristram, for the appellant, Mr. Charles Wil-
loughby Hill. • lieutenant in the Ist Bombay Lancers,
recapitulated the leading facts of the case. In
1856 Mr. Hill, who was then under 20 years of age, be-
came acquainted with the petitioner, Miss Clarke, a young
lady of 17. Au engagement followed ; but Mr. Hill before his
marriage went out to India, and served with distinction in that
country. Having had twelve attacks of fever and a serious
accident, he returned to Europe in 114.19. In the meantime
the petitioner's mother had married • courier at. Hom-
burg, who, it was alleged, had treated Miss Clarke with
great harshness. She had therefore left her home, and went
to live in the family of the Rev. Charles Wood, of Pantry
Court, near Aberzavenny, where she stayed till her mar-
riage. That event took place on the 17th
of May, 1860, and wan followed by • very
brief cohabitation. In the following October Mrs. Hill
commenced • suit for judicial separation on the ground of
cruelty; and soon afterwards the husband retorted by
charging his wife with adultery with Mr. Wood. The hus-
band's suit was tried on the 17th and 18th of June last be-
fore a special jury, whose verdict acquitted Mrs. Hill. On
the 3rd of July the lady's case came on, Mr. Hill
having instructed an attorney named Finney, and left
the country. Mr. Finney had told him that if he agreed to
a decree the judicial separation would follow as a matter of
course, and without the production of evidence. He had,
therefore, consented in these terms, which were contained
in a note addressed by him to Mr. Finney :
"My dear sir, I authorise you to consent to a
decree against me in the suit my wife has in-
stituted against me for • judicial separation, such
decree to extend to the payment of alimony at the pre-
sent rate, with liberty to her to move to increase the same
if she should be so advised; and that it shall also be di.
rectal that her costs shall be paid by me.—Yours truly,
C. WILLOUGHBY HILL"

The case came on, evidence was produced, and the decree
was made. Mr. Hill then instructed his counsel to
move fora newtrial,on theground that be had been deceived
by his solicitor t and that though lie was willing to live
separate from his wife, he did not admit all the charges that
had been brought against him. The court, however, refused
to grant even a rule nisi. The learned doctor contended
that • great hardship had been indicted upon hie
client. Very disgusting imputations hail been cut
upon him, and the learned judge had said
that the charges were so odious and so calculated
to affect Mr. Hill's position in society and hie character as
a gentleman, that be could hardly imagine him consenting
to a verdict against him if he could have oome forward and
disproved it.
Sir C. Cresswell—Justso. The charge was made in the
petition; and if he consented to a venliet, he, in fact, con-
fessed it.
Mr. Justice Beating (without hearing counsel contra)
thought there was no ground for granting • rule.
Mr. Baron Wilde agreed with his learned brother. It
was not contended that there had been any failure of jus.
tine ; and the respondent merely complained that more evi-
dence had been brought against Lim than he bad enpected—
a ground of appeal never before heard of in Westminster.
hall.
The motion was, therefore, dismissed with costa.