The Sun.
London, England, 1864-11-17 00:00:00

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Special Jury.)
CODRINGTON V. CODRINQTON AND ANDERSON.
Mr Bovill, Q C., Mr Sergeant Ballantine, and Dr Spinks
were for the petitioner; the Queen's Advocate and Mr
Hawkins, Q.C., and Dr Swabey for the co-respondent.
The hearing of the case, which has excited so much in-
terest, and which was adjourned from July last, was re-
sumed this morning, _ _

It will be remembered that the petitioner, Henry John
Codrington, Vice-Admiral in her Majesty's Navy, and
C.B , instituted this suit to obtain a dissolution of marriage
on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent,
Lieut.-Col. Anderson, 22d Regiment of Foot, and divers
persons, including a Lieut. Mildmay, of the Rifle Brigade.
The cc-respondent and respondent traversed the allegation,
and the latter pleaded further that the petitioner by his
misconduct conduced to the adultery, if any wore committed.
The case was not concluded when the hearing was ad-
journed in July.
Mrs Watson was cross-examined by the Queen's Advo-
cate. She said her husband was a clergyman of the Church
of England, and went to Malta in his clerical capacity in
1861. Her house was near the official residence of Admiral
Codrington, whose acquaintance she formed at Colonel
Armstrong's in July, 1861, She and Mrs Codrington re-
mained up with Mrs Colson, who was ill during some
nights. Colonel Gore used to come there in the middle of
the night. She did not ar prove of his coming at such
a time, and they had an altercation on the subject with
Mrs Codrington, She said that if witness did not wish
Colonel Gore to come at night she would tell him not to do
so. They both left Mrs Coxeon's in about eight or ten
days. It was two or three days after C. lonel Gore called
that Mrs Codrington said she must go out and see Lieuten-
ant Mildmay. She (witness) adhered to the statement that
she had previously made about Mrs Codrington having
told her of an attempt which Lieutenant Mildmay made on
her virtue, on the occasion when she and Miss Hall had
been sitting up making a screen for the bazaar that was
about tb take place. She did not recollect when this state-
ment of Mrs Codrington's was made to her, but she was
certain it was before the 23d of October, 1861. She men-
tioned that statement for the first time in this court. After

the petition was filed she was asked by the petitioner's
solicitor on that subject, and it was November, 1863. She
refused make any statement on the subject then, because
what she had to communicate had been told to her in con-
fidence, and that she would disclose it only when the oath
was administered to her and released her from the obliga-
tion of aecresy. [Some applause followed this statement,
but it was immediately suppressed.] Mrs Codrington told
her that the adultery with Lieutenant Mildmay was com-
mitted in a lane at the back of her house. There was a

thoroughfare in one of the lanes at the back of the house.
The breadth of that lane was about 12 feet, and she could
not tell whether it was much frequented, and at 8 o'clock
at night she thought probably it would not be. Her
intimacy ceased with Mrs Codrington about a month
after she had made the statement in question.
The first person she (witness) visited after her mother's
death, which took place in March, 1862, was Mrs Codring-
ton. She did not write to Mrs Codrington continually after
that, and sign herself her affectionate friend,
A letter was hero handed to witness dated May, 1862.
On being read it concluded with the words, " Your affec-
tionate friend, Emily Watson."
Examination continued—She did not think she wrote to
Mrs Codrington in that year inviting her to tea on the oc-
casion of her bitthday. She now recollected she must have
done so. She could not recollect whether she came. The
letter placed in her hands was not the answer to that note.
It could be, it was dated July 15, 1862. Witness's invita-
tion was dated the 13th. Mrs Codrington visited our house
continually up to the last. The Admiral also continually
visited us, but withow his wife. He used to come mostly
on Sundays. Ho used to tell us many of the secrets of his
married life. It was done distinctly at the wish of Mrs Cod-
rington. She made a communication to Admiral and Mrs
Codrington after Mrs Smith's death in September, 1862.
Mrs Codrington was in the habit of indulging in extrava-
gant language when she spoke to her about herself. Wit-
ness sometimes thought her statements were so extravagant
that she could not believe them. She did not think :her
mind was wandering. She had never thought, said, or
written to that effect. Witness had never said she thought
she was "more suffering than sinning." At the time of her
mother's death she could not recollect whether she thought
it would be a consolation for Mrs Smith to know that her
daughter's statements were so extravagant as to be beyond
belief. At that time she did not think Mrs Codrington was
in a wandering state of mind. She recollected one occasion
when Mrs Codrington was sitting on the ground in their
drawing room at Valetta previous to her mother's death.
She did not believe at that time she was of a wandering
mind, She hoped it, but she did not think so. She had
watched Mrs Codrington very closely up to that time, as
she was anxious to save her. Witness never expressed any
opinion that at that time she was a non-responsible being.
It was her hope, but not her belief. She (witness) heard
sometime after wards that Mrs Codrington had made some
objectionable remarks concerning her, and she went to Mrs
CoCrington to seek an explanation. Mrs Codrington after
the interview withdrew her statements, but when she (wit-
ness) asked her to put her denial of the aspersions into
writing, she refused, on the ground that the Admiral would
not like it. Witness said the best way to settle that would
• be to ask the Admiral if he objected to such a thing, and
he replied, "Certainly not." We left Malta for family
reasons, and because we could not get a house suitable for
the summer months. On arrival in England she (witness)
went to visit her sister who resided at Hampton Court,
She had no recollection of having had a conversation
with Admiral Codrington. She would not swear that she
did not see him every day, but she had not the slightest
recollection when she began to converse with the admiral
about his wife. She did not recollect what she talked about,
but it was net about legal proceedings to obtain a divorce.
She thought the legal proceedings were first talked about
when the affair with Col. Anderson took place. She had
spoken to Admiral Codrington relative to a separation from
his wife on -account of her misconduct. She had made
observations on Mrs Codrington's conduct as early
- as the year 1861. It arose out of a conversation
which she had with Mrs Codrington relative to her debts.
She never spoke about the misconduct of Mrs Codrington,
by which she meant adultery, until after what took place at
the Grosvenor Hotel in November, 1863. The conversa-
tion about the debts took place in 1861. At that time her
flirting was a subject of the greatest trouble to her husband,
and when the matter was once spoke about the Admire'
spoke to her and her husband as freely as if they had been
his brother and sister. She had had conversations with
Admiral Codrington relative to this case since it was last
before the Court. Ho and Mrs Mould was the writer of the
letter signed Julian. He could not recollect when the
conversation took place about Mrs Mould. but it would be
within the last three or four weeks. Admiral Codrington
said it was a wicked fabrication to say he had received a
letter from Mrs Mould. Lieut. Mildmay once called at their
house at Melton a few days before the 13th Nov., 1861, She
had, as Mrs Codrington had talked so much about a party
she was about to give, to invite him. She was sorry im-
mediately after she had done it. lie had never visited them
since.

....—.
Re-examined by Mr Bovill—The Admiral's sisters were
on very affectionate terms with her family. When. Admiral
Codrington visited us on Sunday evenings my husband
was always at home.
Louise Mignon said—She was formerly in the service of
Mrs. Watson as cook in 1861.2. She recollected Admiral
and Blrs Codrington being expected to tea. Witness opened
the door and she entered. There was a gentleman with Mrs
Codrington, but she did not know his name, but aha had
seen him before. He was a naval officer. He did not enter
the house, but waited at the door for her leaving. When
Mr Codrington left witness opened the door for him, when
she observed the same gentleman waiting outside.
By the Queen's Advocate—She was asked what she
knew of this matter about two months ago. She had not
seen Mrs Watson since she had been in England.
Francoise Vauncour said she was in the service of Mr
and Mrs Watson at Malta. She know Admiral and Mrs
Codrington. They frequently visited the house. She re-
collected that when Mrs Codrington came she generally
wore her morning dress. She recollected one evening when
Mrs Codrington came in her morning dress without her
lady's maid. She afterwards saw her in the bedroom.
She then had on a nankin dress, and she (witness) assisted
her to remove a spot from the front of it.
[The case was proceeding when we went to press.]

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr Commissioner Kerr.)
A STRANGE LADY IN A CARTE DE YISITE.-•SINGULAR
CASE.-HODGMAN V. THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN PHO

TOGRAPHIC COMPANY.
This was an action to recover damages for not properly
taking the plaintiff's carte de viaite, and supplying certain
copies as agreed.
Plaintiff, an elderly fine-looking man, who wore a
" modal ribbon," said ho sent a daguerreotype of himself
and this "old lady" to defendant's, and requested to have
twelve carte do visites, as per their advertisement. After
waiting three weeks he came up from Brantford, and saw
the manager of the company, who said there must be
delay somewhere, but he should know in the course
of a week. At that time plaintiff particularly required
two to send to a friend at Cambridge. The next week plain-
tiff came up again and received a second promise, and in two
days they arrived in a sad state. The daguerreotype wag
broken, and only two carte de visites enclosed. One of these
was a lady plaintiff knew nothing at all about. (Laughter.)
She was not plaintiff's wife, though very nicely dressed,
but not wearing the same frock as his wife. Those cartes
de visites which contained his " old lady" he did not like
at all.
Defendant's attorney said he could not deny that the
daguerreotype was brcken, nor that a " strange lady" had
got into the parcel.
Plaintiff—The parcel was to have been sent by cost, but
it came by the London General Omnibus Company.
His Honour recommended plaintiff to take his " old lady"
with him and be photographed again. (Laughter.)
A Plaintit—That will not do, I have not got the same