The Sun.
London, England, 1864-11-18 00:00:00

Six ran.

HANDICAP. Five furlongs.
Hurrah ••• .
Usher
HANDICAP SWEEPSTAKES. Half mile.
Hesper
Lady Bohun .. . 2
Balornock
Eight ran.
LONGNOR HALL STE. PLE.—NiI Desperandum gets the
stakes.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This day.)

CO URT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Special Jary.)
CODRINGTON V. CODRINGTON AND ANDERSON.

The Queen's Advocate resumed his address to the jury
on behalf of the respondent. lie said—The four charges
against Colonel Anderson were of such a gross and impro-
bable kind that many of them were quite sufficient, in his
opinion, to refute themselves ; yet it would be necessary to
refute it by evidence which he thought would be sufficient
to dispel the calumnies heaped upon Mrs Codrington with
such hatred and malignity. The jury, he thought, would
never dream of convicting the respondent upon such evi-
dence as that of Duck and Roe, bacause he felt certain that
persons nurtured with the slightest tincture of good breeding
would entirely disbelieve such remarkable proceedings as
they spoke to. It was impossible to call before the jury the
person who could do it in the most direct manner; yet he
was happy to inform them that he should be sale to call
before them a gentleman, Lieutenant Galway, who would
prove by the most incontrovertible evidence that the evi-
dence of Policeman Duck was altogether a vile fabrication.
There were, in addition to the charges against Colonel
Anderson, three charges against Lieut. Mildmay, and here
again this indefatigable witness Duck was again the chief

witness. It was in evidence and beyond a doubt, that
the greatest enmity existed in the mind of Duck against
his mistress, because she had reported him to the Admiral
on two occasions—once, because he refused, at her request,
to take off his hat whilst the Host was passing, after which
he never for three months was allowed to do the slightest
thing for Mrs Codrington. The other circumstance was
that she again reported Duck to the Admiral for his fami-
liarities with a Maltese girl (Teresa), and the Admiral was
so incensed against Duck that he threatened to have him
sent on board the Hibernia and flogged. Although at this
time it was evident that he had the utmost hatred and
detestation for his mistress, having, according to his own
evidence, the honour of Mrs Codrington in his hands, he
quietly allows all this to take place and never says a word
about the alleged familiarities with Colonel Anderson and
Lieutenant Mildmay. Why, he believed the jury would
at once disbelieve the assertions of such a man—a man who
now comes forward and never seems satisfied without he
could charge Mrs Codrington with adultery in the open
street, in a boat, or on a landing place. It might be
in such places that Duck would gratify his sensual
propensities, but to imagine any person with the
slightest degree of education and propriety would be guilty
of such a proceeding was too much for human nature to
believe. There was also a charge made by a person named
Mrs Nicholas, viz., that Mrs Codrington committed adultery
with Lieut. Mildmay at the Hospice at St. Bernard ; and
what did the accusation amount to when it becomes to be
sifted to the bottom ? Mrs Nicholas says on one occasion
Mrs Codrington was absent from her bedroom some ten or

twenty minutes, therefore she must have gone to the
apartments of Lieut. Mildmay. He could, he was glad to
inform the jury, dispose of this charge in the most s tis-
factory way, because he should call before theta the
very lady to whoso room Mrs Codrington went on that
occasion referred to. That lady was a Miss Day, now
Mrs Robinson. She would state that Mrs Codrington came
to her on that evening and remained for about a quarter of
an hour gossipping with her, and then returned to her
room; and yet Mrs Nicholas, in her evidence, says that
Miss Day was not of the party. He felt satisfied the jury
knew how to deal with such reckless evidence. The ac-
quaintance of the Watsons with the Codringtons com-
menced in July, 1861, and, in a very short time after, Mrs
Watson states that she became acquainted with the whole
of the secrets of the Admiral's married life. What
could have led to such a sudden and peculiar mark
of confidence on the part of the Admiral he wss at a loss
to discover. This evidence of the witness against her former
friend was of the most bitter description, and her account
of the " confessions," as she called them, was most extra-
ordinary. Ho need not remind the jury of this lady's
demeanour in the witness-box. Whenever questions bearing
a favourable construction for Mrs Codrington ware put to
her she became exhausted and overcome. She wrought her
evidence up to a sensation point, and then she quietly asked
whether she need go further. How different her bearing
when she was re-examined by his learned friend Mr Bevil];
then she was full of venom and vigour, and answered his
questions without the slightest hesitation. As sensible
men, would they be satisfied with such evidence ?

It was marked throughout with the vilest cant and disgust-
ing hypocrisy such that in all his experience he had never
witnessed before in any court of justice, but the climax
of evil was not arrived at when this estimable lady stated

that Mrs Codrington told her that she had committed
adultery with Lieut. Mildmay in the open street. What
was the conduct of this estimable person after such a com-
munication. Did she ,break off all conneztion with the
person guilty of such an outrageous proceeding. Did she
more than keep up the cold oonventualities which society
required. No ! Why this person—this abandoned woman
—who had, as it was alleged, committed so great a :crime

—this woman was the first person that Niro Watson wrote
to after the death of her mother, asking for comfort and
consolation—writing to her in the warmest ,terms, and
concluding her letter as her affectionate friend. The learned
gentleman then proceeded to refer to the other allegations
in the petition—viz,, the charges of adultery alleged to have
been constituted in London on the 10th and 21st of July,
1863, and the 2d and 11th of July of the same year. Ho
said the conduct of Admiral Codrington and Col. Anderson
showed that he was too honourable a man to believe him
guilty of the charges imputed against him, but that he
(Admiral Codrington) was instigated to bring forward this
proceeding by the unceasing enmity of Mrs Watson. The
learned gentlemen concluded a very effective address, by
assuring the jury that when they had heard the whole of
the evidence he intended to call before them, they would
sympathize with his client, and acquit her of the foul
charge that was sought to fix upon her.
Mr Price having addressed the jury on the part of the
co-respondent,
The following witnesses were then examined for the
defence:—

Henry Field Bird, examined by Mr Hawkins, Q.C.—I
am the solicitor fur the petitioner. lam the friend of Mr
and Mrs Watson. I was introduced by them to Admiral
Codrington to conduct this suit. I have not had letters
written by Mrs Watson handed to mo. I yesterday heard
something about a letter written by Mrs Watson to the Ad-
miral. I asked him about it, and ho said he had not got it. I
told him the purport of it, and I believe he searched for it,
but he could not find it. The admiral said he did not recol-
lect receiving suoh a letter—that he believed he never re-
ceived such a letter. The letter placed in my hand is
written by Admiral Codrington. I find there a quotation
from the letter referred to. I asked the admiral whether he
had any letters from Mrs Watson. Before the petition was
filed I saw the admiral. He came to nie on the introduc-
tion of Mr and Mrs Watscn. He told me Mr Ycung, the
family lawyer, had refused to take the case—

Tr 1307i11-117c don't want to hear anything about that.
Eliza Horne said—l was at Malta from 1859 to 1861. I
recollect a bazaar beng held there. I and Mrs Codrington
made a screen for that bazaar. This was in May, 1860. 1
was intimate with Admiral and Mrs Codrington. I formed
my own opinions us to how they lived outwardly, it would
seem they lived happily. A disagreement had taken place
between them, and I spoke to the admiral about it. In
October, 1861, I made no communication to Mrs Watson
about Mrs Codrington committing herself with Lieutenant

Mildmay. I could not do so, as Mrs Codrington never
made any such communication to me.
Cross-examined by Mr Bovill—Mrs Codrington never
talked to me about Lieutenant Mildmay.
Mrs Robertson—l am the wife of a clergyman of the
Church of England. I remember meeting Mrs Codrington
in 1861 abroad. We made several excursions. I afterwards
went to the Hospice St. Bernard and met Mrs Codrington.
Before we arrived at the Hospice Lieutenant Mildmay left
the party to secure rooms. At the Hospice Mrs Codrington's
room was very near my own and my sister's. My father and
mother occuped rooms on the same floor. Lieut. Mildmay
was at the other end of the corridor. Mrs Codrington, on
the night of arrival, came into my badroom, and we entered
into a general conversation, and one of us promised to call
her the next morning. Mrs Codrington at the Hospice
always conducted herselt in an open and ladylike manner.
Cross-examined by Mr Bovili —The Codringtons and cur
party did not travel in company.
The Judge Ordinary—How many nights did youromai
at the Hospice ?
Witness—Daly one.

The Rev. Mr Day, father of the last witness, said he waa,
travelling in Switzerland in August, 1851. My daughter's'
description et the Hospice is quite correct. She and Mrs
Codrington used to walk out together. During the time
was at the Hospice I never observed anything unladylikei
in Mrs Codrington's conduct.

Richard 'Walsh—l was servant to Admiral Codrington
in November, 1563. I don't know Colonel Andcrson. X
recollect Sunday, the Gth of November, 1863, but I don't,
recollect seeing that gentleman call at Eccleston-strect. j
saw his card.

Cross-examined by Mr Bovill—l have carried letters h 3,
the post for Mrs Codrington. I never noticed the athlress.
I have never taken letters to 43, Pall-mall, for M kis Cod-
rington.

The further hearing of the ease was then adjourned.
uctil to-morrow,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Before Chief Justice Erle, and Justices Byles and Keating.)

TAYLOR V. RUMPHREYS..--THE REFRESHMENT ACT.

Their lordships gave judgment in this case, which it will
be recollected was an appeal from the decision of the magis-
trates of Birmingham, who find the appelant 40s. for serving
refreshments during the hours prohibiteJ by the Refresh-
ment Act. The pnblichouse was situated at Moseley, and
on a certain Ssnday the police constables found about 20 or
30 persons drinking therein. The landlord contended
they were travellers and that had he refused to
servo them with necessary refreshments he would
have been liable to action and fine. The magistrates de-
cided the men were not travellers within the meaning of
the act, and fined the landlord, and against this decision
appeal was made.

Their lordships said if the persons went to the house
knowing they could obtain refreshments during illegal
hours, then the decision of the magistrates was right; but
if they went there as excursionists then the landlord was
called upon to use his discretion as to the refreshments he
would supply. There was not sufficient evidence to prove
that the people found in the public-house went there for
the purpose of illegally procuring drink, and therefore the
decision of the magistrates must be overruled.
Judgment accordingly.

LONDON GAZETTE--This Evenings

-41.-

FOREIGN-OFFICE, Nov. 8.
The Queen has been graciously pleased to appoint the
Honourable Thomas John Hovel! Thurlow, now tempo,
rarity attached to her Majesty's Embassy at Vienna, to ba
a Third Secretary in her Majesty's diplomatic service.
FOREIGN OFFICE, Nov. 9.
The Queen has been graciously pleased to appoint
Liam Arthur White, E, q., now British Vice-Consul, at
Warsaw, to be her Majesty's Consul at Dantzig.

ADMIRALTY, Nov. 15.
Mr Benjamin Richard King, and Mr John Millar 'Wat-
son, hare been promoted to the rank of First Class Assis-
tant Eagineers in her Majesty's Fleet, with seniority of
11th November.