The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-21 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PI.EAS, JAN. 20.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice GASELEE.)
WALKER O. GROOM AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to
recover from the defendants, the assignees of Messrs.
Chambers and Co., a sum of 3781., being six years'
salary as librarian to the Italian Opera Houe.
The plaintiff, as he alleged, had been appointed
librarian to the Italian Opera House by a Mr. Tra-
herne, who was secretary to the defendants, as
assignees of Messrs. Chambers and Co., after they got
possession of the Opera House from Mr.Ebers. It was
stated that the plaintiff at this time acted as copyist,
and was to have the charge of the library, it being
his duty to give out the music for the performance,
and to superintend it generally.
A letter was put in from Laporte to Traherne,
to show that the plaintiff had been employed as
librarian.

After a most tedious trial the Jury found a ver•
diet for the plaintiff—Damages 1001.

ARCHES COURT, JAN. 20.

(Before Sir J. NICHOLL.)
SERGEANT O. SERGEANT.

This was an appeal from the decision of the
Learned Judge of the Consistorial Court, in which
a suit was commenced by a Lieutenant Sergeant,
of the Dragoon Guards, against Harriet, his wife,
for a divorce, on the ground of adultery. In the
Court below a libel was admitted on behalf of the
husband, charging adultery, as committed by Mrs.
Sergeant, and a responsive allegation was offered in
behalf of the wife, pleading connivance by the hus-
band, and alleging acts of adultery against him. The
Learned Judge of the Court below (Dr. Lushing-
ton) rejected the allegation offered by the wife
pleading connivance and adultery against the hus-
band, from which decision the present appeal was
made.

Sir JOHN NICHOLL said the parties in this case
were married in 1825, in Scotland, the husband
being a minor. In 1829 the husband, having a
Lieutenancy in the Dragoons, proceeded to join his
regiment, which was in India, leaving his wife at
home. In his absence, while residing in Sloane-
street, she formed an adulterous connection with
parties, with which the husband became acquainted,
by receiving a packet containing among other things
a letter sent by his wife to a stranger, asking a loan
of money. The husband obtained leave of absence
and came to England, and having heard of the
adultery of his wife commenced the present suit.
A libel pleading connivance, offered by the wife,
having been rejected by the Learned Judge of the
Court below, the present appeal was promoted.
There was nothing to show that the husband con-
nived at the adultery of his wife, who was experi-
enced in the work], had been a kept mistress before
her marriage, and now received an annuity, which it
was pleaded the husband well knew, as she now
enjoyed it. The Court must not look too closely
to the temperament of the husband. He was a
young Officer of Dragoons, and might not have
acted judiciously, but, having formed the connection,
the Court could not relieve him from his duty to
his wife. If all the facts stated in the recrimina-
tory allegation were proved they were not sufficient
for the Court to call upon him to defend himself,
and he (Sir J. Nichol)), therefore, pronounced
against the appeal, thinking the Learned Judge in
the Court below rightly rejected it.