The Express.
London, England, 1861-06-06 00:00:00

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAUBLS.—Jows 5.
(Before the Judge Ontinarr.)
GITHIN V. OrTIIIN (BAST).
In this we Indy Gethin had commenced a suit agaiast
Sir B. Oath* her husband, fora dissolution of her mar-
riage. It was pert heard, and stood over for further evi-
dence.

Phi son now applied to the court on behalf of the
Queen's Proctor for leave to intervene, on the ground
of collusion, sod also of adultery on the part of the peti-

I.se granted.
WATSON (HART. C. WATSON AND WILDINSON.
Dr. Spinks, on he fof Lady Watson, prayed that she
might hare the custody of her four children, the eldestof
wbom was born in 1855. At present they were staying at
Wratting Hall, Cambridgeshire, the seat of Sir Charles
Watson, the petitioner.
Mr. Hannen appeared for Sir C. Watson.
Sir C. Creaswell could not direct the children to be taken
away from their home, but he would allow Lady Watson
to have ammo to them at Wratting.

ROWLET O. ROWLEY.

In this case, which had compromised • short
time age,
Mrs. Rowley (in person) preyed the court, under the cir-
cumstances dated is her affidavit, to place her petition
spin on the Ale.
The Solicitor-General briefly stated the facts under which
he had made the compromise. A propped on behalf of the
respondent that there should be a deed of separation bad
been communicated to Mrs. Rowley at • consultation with
her counsel, and as she then appeared disinclined to accept
it, she was told that if before the trial no the following day
she should change her opinion she might inform them, other.
wise they would proceed with the cause. When he (the
Solicitor-General) came into court • proposition vas sub-
mitted to him by Dr. Deane on behalf of Lis clients Mr.
Rowley. He communicated it to Mr. Stuart, the clerk of
Mrs. Rovitry's solicitor, and told him to convey it to Mrs.
Rowley herself. After waiting a considerable time he felt it
would not be juat to thecourt todetain it any longer. The jury
was accordingly swore, sad just as he (the Solicitor-General)
was commencing his address, Mr. Stuart erne back from his
client, and said " Mts. Rowley leaves herself in the hands
of her control." He (the learned gentleman), therefore,
suspended his address, and consulted his colleagues, Dr.
Pbillimore and Dr. Spiuks, with whose asseot he deter-
mined that it would be expedient to accept the husband's
offer. But the jury had been sworn, and the court mid
that unless he (the learned solicitor) would apply to have
the petition dismissed, it would still remain on the ale. He
therefore gave an undertaking that he would do so, but he
bad never been empowered to make the motion.

Dr. Minoan, Q.C., said he had zwiltToi to add to the
statement of hie learned friend.
_ _ _

Dr. Dottie, Q.C., rid that Mrs. Rowley's OWE affidavit
oostaised as adtnianiou that b the advice of Mr. Overeed,
her trustee, die had coessated to leave the matter is the
heads of her ereasel.

Tioeboartsaid it wia phiced in a very embarrassing
position by the petition being left upon the file, and it
would take time to consider what course it ought to pursue
with reference to the present application.

♦mAN r. VIVIAN.

Dr. Phillimore, by, appeared for
the petitiouer, who prayed the cuurt to award her
alimony, peodeate lite. and azamined, Mr. Vivian ae to hia
meow.

Mr- inart (with whom Wu Mr. Folkard) appeared teethe
defendant, and a amtroverse having arisen uto a state-
meat which his client had made, during a consultation at
which he was present, the learned gentleman tendered him-
self aa a wituset

Mir U. Cromwell said that though he had had 42 years'
experience of the bur he Mid never known such a proceed-
ing, but be could not prevent Mr. Smart giving his evidence
if lie 'lived.
Mr. Smart accordingly went into the box, and having been
sworn in his wig sad gown, he was examined by kis junior.
The point was, however, of no public interest.
The court awarded 111101. a year.
MEAD e. MEAD—JUDOMIENT.

This case was fully reported on the 212th ult.
The petitioner. Mrs. Martha Maid, sought a divorce from
her husband, Mr. Frederick Tudor Mead, a farmer and
cattle dealer at Writtle, Essex, on the ground of cruelty soil
adultery. The respondent denied the latter charge, and
haleaded self-dance in excuse for any violence that he might
ve committed.
The marriage had taken place on the 23rd of January,
INO, at Great Duamuw, the petitioner being the daughter
of • hrmer named Modem. The cohabitation had lasted
tee years, sad
lienin the birth of five children, of
whom four were stillg. The petitioner alleged that
great unhappiness had been produced by her husband's
mmeng • young woman named Stock, the daughter of
another Essex farmer, an governess to her children. lu
consequence of her remonstrance* he had refused to sleep
with her for the last five years. He had called her oppro-
brious names, and had several times beet ber severely.
la 1869 Miss Stock had left the house for a short time, and
had gone to lodge with a Mrs. Smith, in Lower Kenning.