The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-15 00:00:00

DICKENS V. DICKENS.

Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., on behalf of the petitioner,
Mrs. Dickens, applied for an order for attachment
against the respondent for non-payment of £l5O,
the costs which had been taxed. In July; 1859, a
divorce was granted Mrs. Dickens, and afterwards
an order was made for £6O a year permanent ali-
mony. An attachment was granted against the
respondent for £75 arrears of that alimony, which
was served on him with great difficulty, and he was
at present in the Queen's Bench. It appeared that
he had held a situation in a Government office, and
he trusted the Court would grant the attachment for
the costs as well as the arrears of the alimony.
Sir C. Cresswell granted the application, and
directed the attachment to issue.

SEDDON V. SEDDON AND DOYLE-THE ONE FARTHING

DAMAGES CASE,
Our readers will recollect that in this case, which
was fully reported, and which occupied the Court
two days, the petitioner, who is a clerk in an ex-
tensive cabinet manufactory in London, instituted
a suit for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of
his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, and the
jury returned a verdict that she had been guilty
the adultery pleaded, that the petitioner had also
committed adultery with another female, and that
by his own immorality he had conduced to her mis-
conduct. Damages were claimed, which the jury
assessed at one farthing.
Dr. Phillimore, on behalf of the petitioner, now
moved :or judgment and also for costs against the
co-respondent. He contended that, notwithstand-
ing the finding of the jury and the small amount of
damages awarded, the evidence showed that the
co-respondent was aware that Mrs. Seddon was a
married woman at the time when he cohabited with
her. The parties had been dismissed, but his lord-
ship had made an order by which opportunities
were afforded the respondent to see her children.
He submitted that ipso facto the Court had no
power to make such an order, arid moved that it be
rescinded.

Mr. Hannen, on the part of the respondent, con-
tended that according to the section of the Act re-
lating to the custody of children, the Court had the
power to make such order.

Sir C. Cresswell—n hen I dismiss the parties I
am clearly of opinion I have not such power. It
would be absurd to suppose that the legislature in-
tended to give me jurisdiction over all the children
of married people in the kingdom.
Mr. Hawkins then applied for the costs of the
co-respondent, and Mr. Hannen made a similar
application on behalf of his client.

Sir C. Cresswell—Were I vested with authority
to deal with persons guilty of crime when brought
before me, I should certainly inflict a fine on the
petitioner; for nothing could be more cruel than
his treatment to his wife, who had been forced by
his misconduct to throw herself into the arms of
the man Doyle. With respect to the application
on behalf of the respondent, it was perhaps salutary
that women guilty of adultery should know that
they lost all right, as far as this Court is concerned,
of access to their children. I cannot grant the
petitioner his divorce, and, as his wife has been
guilty of adultery, I cannot entertain her applica-
tion and permit her to retain the custody of the
children. I consider that the petitioner has no
right to his costs, he having been proved so great a
delinquent himself, and he must pay the wife's
costs, it being necessary for the ends of justice that
husbands should do so, wives being without means
of their own. As regarded the petitioner and Mr.
Doyle, they must each pay their own costs.

WATSON V. WATSON AND WILKINSON.

Sir Charles Watson, Bart., petitioner, instituted
a suit for a dissolution of marriage by reason of his
wife's adultery, and claimed £lO,OOO damages. The
case was heard at the sittings after last Term, and
the jury found a verdict to the effect that the alleged
adultery had been committed ; but that the peti-
tioner had been guilty of adultery with divers
females, and they assessed the damages at 40s. The
case has been too recently before the public to
require any recapitulation of the facts.
Mr. Hannen, on the part of the petitioner, now
prayed the judgment of the Court, which has been
reserved.

Mr. Macaulay, Q C., for the corespondent, con-
tended that a month should elapse before the Court
should pronounce judgment; and the trial had not
taken place until the 18th of last month.

Sir O. Cresswell agreed with Mr. Macaulay, and
deferred judgment.
Mr. Macaulay applied for his client's costs.
Sir C. Cresswell—You appear for the co-respon-
dent. I shall allow you no costs. (Laughter.)

BUSINESS OF THE COURT. -
This was the first day the Court sat this Term,
and though a list has not been published, it is
understood that over 100 cases stand for hearing.