The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
CRIPPS'S DIVORCE.
Lord CAMPBELL sat ai Deputy-Speaker.
The following is the evidence which was offered at
the bar of their Lordships' House on Friday in sup-
port of the petition praying for this divorce. The
petitioner, it will be remembered, is Mr. Edward
Cripps, nephew of the late representative of Cirences-
ter in Parliament, and son of the Rev. H. Cripps,
vicar of Preston, in the county of Gloucester.
Mr. Talbot appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Mr. Cooper, a clerk in the firm of Messrs. Bayley
and Janson, proved that he had served a copy of the
bill, as well as a notice of the second reading thereof,
upon Mrs. Cripps, at her lodgings, in Montpelier-
street, Brompton, on the 11th inst. He fully explained
the nature of both documents to her.
By Lord CAMPBELL—He knew the person upon
whom he had served these notices was Mrs. Augusta
Sarah Cripps, from her having been pointed out to
him by a brother of the petitioner, but in no other
way.

Mr. H. Cripps, a barrister, and the brother from
whose chambers the petitioner had gone to marry and
live with Augusta Sarah Callington (now his wife),
proved that the person upon whom the last witness
had served the notice in question was the wife of his
brother, and from whom he now sought to be di-
vorced.
The clerk of St. Pancras Church produced the
register of the marriage of the parties at that church
by license on the sth of January, 1842. The cere-
mony was witnessed by the clerk, the sexton, and the
pew-opener.
The last witness, in answer to questions put by
Lord Campbell, said that it was not an unfrequent
event for marriages to be celebrated in their church
when no one was present but the officials connected
with the church, and for those persons then to be
called on to sign the register as witnesses. Of course,
if there were any other persons present neither she
nor the sexton would be called on to sign as the wit-
nesses of the celebration of the marriage.
Lord CAMPBELL here called the attention of the
Learned Counsel to the fact, that in the register the
wife was described as " Augusta," whilst in the Bill
and the petition she was described as " Augusta
Sarah."
Mr. TALBOT said that was so ; but the identity was
proved by the libel which the wife had propounded in
the ecclesiastical court, in her suit for the restoration
of conjugal rights. There she had described herself
as " Augusta Sarah," wife of Edward Cripps.
Mr. H. Cripps was recalled, when he said that
certain letters which were here produced were in the
handwriting of his brother's wife, from whom he had
received many notes, and therefore he had become ac-
quainted with her handwriting. He was a married
man himself, and he lived at Brompton, no great
distance from where his brother's wife resided. It
had occurred upon several occasions that parcels
directed to " Mrs. Cripps," which had been intended
for his brother's wife, had been left at his house, and
it had been in reference to such parcels that he had
had the notes from Mrs. E. Cripps. In the year 1841
he was living in London, when his brother Edward
came up to complete his studies at St. Bartholomew's
Hospital. The late Member for Cirencester was their
uncle. It was arranged by the family that his brother
should reside at his chambers, in order that he should
thereby be more directly under his charge.
His brother at that period was only 18 years of
age, and that occasion was his first visit to London.
In the month of October in that year, in consequence
of ill health, he had been compelled to go to
Brighton, where he remained for some time, leaving
his brother alone at his chambers. Shortly after Christ.
mas, 1841, the family received an anonymous letter
which referred to some proceedings of his brother,
and, upon its being shown to him, he put an adver-
tisement in the newspapers asking for an interview
with or a further communication from the writer of
that letter. He received no reply to the advertise-
-1 ment, but in the course of some time a person of the
name of Scott called upon him, and it happened to be
on the evening next succeeding that on which his
brother had left his chambers. He was not himself
aware that his brother had left the chambers until the
following morning. In consequence of the informa-
tian he had obtained at this interview with Mr.
Scott he had accompanied that person to a house
in George-street, Somers-town, and there he
had found his brother, in the company of the
lady whom he stated to b© his wife. The date
of this visit was Thursday, the 20th of January, 1842.
A conversation ensued upon the step his brother had
taken, in the course of which he asked him how he
proposed to live, and what means he had of supporting
a wife as well as of maintaining himself. The reply
was, that his wife had obtained the promise of a Go-
vernment appointment for him from a friend of hers
who was very high in the Treasury. After some
further conversation he quitted the house, but as his
suspicions, from something he saw upon that occa-
sion, were aroused as to the respectability of the cha-
racter of his brother's wife, he set on foot inquiries,
the result of which was to satisfy him that she was a
very abandoned woman. Upon this discovery he
wrote to his father, and consulted his late uncle as to
the best course to be adopted with the view of
effecting a separation of his brother from his
profligate wife. Eventually they all agreed, in
order to rescue his brother from the certain ruin
which was hanging over him, that strong measures
must be resorted to, and accordingly they arranged to
bring a false charge against his infatuated brother,
and thereby to procure the intervention of the police.
Accordingly, on the Saturday, the discovery of his
brother's new abode only having been made on the
Thursday, they gave the young man into the custody
of the pence, who carried him away from his wife,
entirely in opposition to his wish or will. The wife
afterwards came to his chambers, and was extremely
violent and abusive when she found that he was de-
termined to effect a separation between them. In the
course of her visit she pulled out her wedding-ring
and threw it away, saying that hatred and a feeling
of revenge were now sweeter than love to her, and
that the latter she would take an opportunity of
having. His brother, as he had already said, they
had taken away from his wife on the Saturday, and
on the following Monday evening he had watched the
wife, and had seen her meet, evidently by previous ,
appointment, a gentleman in George-street, Hanover-
square, with whom she went away.
Mary Pricker was next examined—She stated that
her maiden name was Edmonds, and that in the early
part of the year 1842 she had lived as cook and
housekeeper to Captain Garth at No. 30, Hans-place,
Sloane-street. She very well remembered a lady of
the name of Cripps coming to her master's house in
the early part of the year 1842.
Lord BROUGHAM-110W do you know it was Mrs.
Cripps ? What age did she appear to he ?—The
witness could not tell, she was not a judge of ages.
Lord BROUGHAM—But you can give a guess,
surely. Did she look 24, or did she look like 31 ?
Come now, for I have seen the lady (as his Lordship
was understood to say.)—(Laughter.) The witness
again said she could not tell, and then proceeded to
say that Mrs. Cripps came to Captain Garth's one
night about the end of the month of January,
1842, about 12 o'clock. Captain Garth brought her
with him either in his cab or his brougham. They
both went into the dining-room, where they
supped, and some time afterwards they both went
out again. Whilst Captain Garth and Mrs. Cripps
were in the dining-room she had listened at the door,
and from what she heard she was quite confident that
a criminal intercourse had taken place between them
that night on a sofa which was in that room. On the
following day Mrs. Cripps came again, and she came
several times afterwards. She would come sometimes
about 4, or 5, or 6, or 7 o'clock in the afternoon, and
go away again about 10 or 11 o'clock in the captain's
brougham. She remembered Mrs. Cripps coming in
the month of March, 1842, and stopping a week in
the house. Upon that occasion Mrs. Cripps had slept
in a room adjoining the captain's bedroom on the
second floor. Upon that floor there was no other
room. From what occurred during that visit she
was well aware that a criminal intercourse was being
carried on between the parties, and she was fully
aware what character Mrs. Cripps was from the
nature of the conversation which she had heard
whilst she was listening at the door.
Lord Baouonass—How do you know that there
was a criminal intercourse taking place between
them, woman ? Did you look through the keyhole ?
—(Great laughter.) The witness—No ; but she
knew it from the conversation
between them.—(lncreasedhlaugeihtuteeiros.na)
o
h at
dNiVdh
the
which
he y hsaady awhat
didL t
rhdeyß nt
aoluko
about
?
_Te 7n ht Retaerpdd, buther
presently said that on one o shemaster tell Mrs. Cripps that she was the most beauti-
ful woman he had ever kissed except Lady
Lord BROUGHAM—Why, woman, it was in the
dark ; how could your master possibly tell in the
dark that she was a most beautiful woman ?—(Roars
of laughter.) The witness—Why, the captain had
a light in his room, my Lord, and so it was not in
the dark.—(lncreased laughter.)
Lord BROUGHAM—But, how could you hear what
?—The witness could hear
they were talking about
very well—not every word, perhaps—but she could
hear them talk.
Lord BROUGHAM—Did they talk loud, or did they
?—The witness replied
not speak in a low whisper
was
that it was not in a low whisper, and that it was loud
said.
enough for her to hear what
Lord BROUGHAM—Are you a married woman ?
The witness gave an answer in the affirmative.
Lord BROUGHAM—Then don't
you know, as a
married woman, that persons, under the circumstances
and in the position in which you say these persons
were, always speak in a very low tone of voice ,
The witness said that, let that be as it might, she bad
heard the conversation between Captain Garth, her
master, and Mrs. Cripps.
The examination then proceeded, The witness said