The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-02 00:00:00

the trial, or she could have gone to any house in
Piccadilly. She never bonoure.l me with her pre
sence th, re. I hed no cont rot over roar, she would do
as she liked. (Laughter.) When she left me she
went alone. I advertised in the papers that in con-
sequence of her scandalous conduct I would not be
answerable for her debts, and directed my solicitor
to get in my bills and discharge them. A separation
took place in June, 1862, by which I was not to
molest her, and I should not have gone near her
afterwards if she had not bothered my life out.
(Laughter.) She took a house in Westbourne-ter-
race, and paid for it out of her own money. She
was constantly writing to me, and I went back. I
spent a great deal of money, and I then separated
from her again.
Mary Ann Decker deposed—l was in Mrs. Wind-
ham's service in 1861 and 1862. I was with her at
Bilborough House, St. John's-wood, Manchester,
Newcastle, Clarendon-gardens, and other places. I
was in her service before her marriage, when she
was under the protection of a gentleman. The first
time I saw her after her marriage was at the Euston
Hotel. She afterwards went to Glasgow. I went
into her service when she returned to Bilborough
House. She kept a French servant, John Foyle,
who acted as footman, myself, and there was a cook
for a short time. I attended on her. The first or
second day I was sent for to light a fire in the bed-
room. She and Giuglini were in bed together at
the time. He lived in the house for a fortnight or
three weeks.

Mr. Huddleston—Where did you say you saw
hem

Mr. Baron Martin—You have got them in bed
together ; what more do you want ?
Mr. Keane—How often did you see them in
bed together ?
Witness—Every night.
Did they appear to be living as man and wife ?
I believe so. (Laughter.) They did the same at
Liverpool and Manchester. When she lived at
Clarendon-gardener Giuglini came at night and
left in the morning.
In what part of the house used he to spend the
night P—ln the bedroom, (Laughter.)
And did you see them together as man and wife in
the house ?—I suppose so. I saw them in bed to-
gether. That lasted up to the time of Mrs. Wind-
ham's going to Felbrigg Hall on the Bth February.
I have not lived with her since.

Cross-examined—l went to Felbrigg Hall with
her. John Foyle did not. He was Mrs. Windham's
servant. I did not mention to any one that she was
living with Giuglini. I was not asked.
John Foyle deposed—l went with Mrs. Wind-
ham in 1856, when she was Miss Willoughby.
I acted as her eoachman and drove her about town.
She was then living in Orchard street, under the
protection of a gentleman. I first knew Giuglini
from his visiting her there. Before her marriage
I used to drive her to Somers-terrace, Brompton,
where Giuglini resided. I recollect the marriage
taking place in 1861, a week or fortnight after
I saw her at the Euston Hotel. I then went
into her service again, and at her tirections
I went to Mr. Poole's and was measured for
my clothes. I went with her to Bilborough House.
Giuglini "came there to live. Mrs. Windham was

living with Giuglini at the time of the lunacy in-
quiry. Mrs. Windham accompanied Giuglini on a
professional tour. I was left in charge of the house.
I have taken bills up to the bed-room and seen them
in bed together as man and wife. It was the same
at Clarendon-gardens. Giuglini used to go out in
the brougham with her. I never saw the defen-
dant at Bilborough House or Clarendon-gardens.
Mrs. Decker was recalled—l never saw Mr.
Windham at either of the above places.
The deed was then put in, by which Mrs. Wind-
ham was entitled to an income of £BOO a year.
This was the defendant's case.

Mr. Baron Martin said, that being so, he was pre-
pared to tell the jury that if they believed the de-
fendant's witnesses he was entitled to the verdict.
Mr. Huddleston said in that case it would be idle
for him to struggle with the case further. Assum-
ing adultery had been committed, would not the
condonation in Westbourne-terrace make the defen-
dant liable ? The conversation that he proved on
the 28th Feb. was a recognition of the wife's
authority to pledge the husband's credit.
Mr. Baron Martin said that probably in the case of
a kept woman it might, but not in that of a wife.
Mr. Huddleston said that probably his lordship
would give him an opportunity of challenging that
ruling.
Mr. Baron Martin said he did not want leave.
He could move without it. He should direct the
jury that by law almarried woman could to a cer-
tain extent bind her husband ; but if she were liv-
ing apart from him and committed adultery, she
absolutely destroyed her agency, and ceased to have
any power to bind her husband, and every contract
she made under these circumstances was void as
against the husband. Condonation had no effect,
for the contract arose here at the moment it was

made, wad the work and labour done, and anything
that subsequently passed between the plaintiff and
defendant could not at all affect his liability. In
point of law he never was liable, and it was not
only law but reason and common sense.
The Jury then returned a verdict for the defen-
dant.