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 bad been taxed. In July, 1859, a
divorce was granted Mrs. Dickens, and afterwards
an order was made for £6O a year permanent ali-
mony. Au attachment was granted against the
respondent for .£73 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 day'', the petitioner, who is A clerk in an cx.
ten .ire cabinet manufactory in London, instituted
a ,tiit„ tot a dr:.:a4iition of marriage on the ground of
hi wife?s adultery with the co-respondent, and the
jury retrrned a verdict that Ole h,3(-I been guilty of
the adultery pleaded, that the petitioner had also
committed adultery Nvith another female, and that
by his own immorality be 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 for 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 seo her children.
lie submitted that ipso facto the Court had no
power to make such an order, and 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rescinded.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-14, 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.