The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-12 00:00:00

LA TV INTELL.

-GENCE.—June 11.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
LAWRENCE V. LAWRENCE.
This case (which was heard on the 16th ult., and
reported fully at the time) was the petition of a
wife for a dissolution on the ground of adultery and
desertion. The husband, :an officer in the commis-
sariat/ went out to China, where he was broken by
a court-martial for defalcations from the commisst.
riat chest. Since then he had written many letters
to his wife full of hypocritical professions of repen-
tance and promises of amendment, all concluding,
however, with urgent appeals for pecuniary assist-
ance. Mrs. Lawrence and her mother had sent
him several largo sums, but he had wasted
them all in gambling and extravagance, and it was
found that since his return to England he had lived
with a young woman named Eliza Brown, whom
he picked up at the Crystal Palace, and for a mar-
riage with whom he had actually taken out a
license. He had not, however, actually committed
the bigamy.
Sir C. Creswell, having recapitulated the facts of
the case, held that they proved 1711ful desertion for
two years and upwards. There must, therefore, be
a decree nisi with costs; the petitioner to have the
custody of her child.
TEM ROWLEY CASE.
Dr. Spinks applied for an attachment against the
respondent, tle Hon. Hugh Rowley, against whom
an order f
the payment to Mrs. Rowley of £361
had bee:a made. That order had not been obeyed.
The Court directed the attachment to issue as
Prayed.
xruouous V. DtiRROTIGIIB. BURROUGHS V. ITURROUGHS
AND SILCOCK.--SENTENCE.
In the former of these remarkable suits, Mrs.
Burroughs, the wife of an attorney residing at Stal-
ham, in Norfolk, petitioned for a restitution of
conjugal rights. Her husband replied by charging
her with adultery with Mr. Silcock, spirit mer-
chant in the same village. The evidence in sup-
port of this plea was that of the Rev. Mr. White,
the rector of the parish, who stated that having
occasion to go to the house he entered without
knocking, and surprised the alleged paramours in
the fact. Another witness stated that he had also
been an eyewitness of adultery .between the parties.
To rebut these statements Mr. Silcock himself was
examined, and he flatly denied the whole transac-
tion, and that at the time spoken to by Mr. White
he was on a journey as commercial traveller for his
firm. The court reserved its judgment.
The second case, which was tried before a jury,
was a suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground
of the same state of facts. The respondents, besides
denying the adultery, pleaded three recriminatory
charges of adultery against the petitioner. At this
trial Mr. Silcock, being a party, could not be ex-
amined, 'but he called several witnesses to establish
an alibi: and Mr. White varied the time which he
hp.a given on the former trial for the scene to
which he deposed. The evidence against Mr. Bur-
roughs was extremely unsatisfactory, and the jury
negatived the charges both against the petitioner
and the respondents. In this latter case,
Sir C. Cresswell gave judgment upon a question
that the petitioner should be ordered to pay his
wife's costs beyond the sum he had already paid
into court. His lordship directed that Mrs. Bur-
roughs should have all the costs she had incurred in
her own defence, but that Mr. Burroughs should
only pay a moiety of the costs incurred in bring.
ing the counter charges, it being manifest that the
defence had been a joint one.
In the former suit Sir C. Cresswell now gave
judgment. Ho was sorry to differ in opinion from
that jury ; but he was bound to deliver judgment
upon the evidence given before him. Believing
that Mrs. Burroughs had committed adultery, he
could not order Mr. Burroughs to take her back.
The petition must therefore be dismissed.
Sir F. Slade observed that his client had prayed
for a judicial separation.
Sir C. Cresswell—You cannot possibly have it.
You have not treated it as a suit for a separation on
account of adultery, for you put Mr. Burroughs
into the box.
Sir F. Slade and Dr. Spinks contended that the
case was not one in which the evidence of the hus-
band had been excepted by the Act of Parliament.
This was not a suit originating in adultery.
The Court, nevertheless, felt bound to refuse the
separation. He bad stated at the trial that if he
allowed the evidence of the husband to be given, he
should not treat him as actor in the suit for judicial
separation.