The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-29 00:00:00

THE DIVORCE COURT.

The case of Shedden v. Patrick, which was de-
cided on Tuesday last, is almost unique in the legal
annals of this country. In the first place, we may
observe that the litigation, in some shape or other,
had endured for a period extending beyond half a
century, when Parliament in 1858 passed the Legi-
timacy Declaration Act, a measure which afforded
to the petitioners a new and further opportunity of
submitting their case to the decision of the Divorce
Court. In the second place, the recent trial occu-
pied exactly fourteen days—an entire term, if we
exclude the days allotted to motions. What has
been the result of thitwrotracted litigation P After
a most attentive and careful investigation before
the full Court, conducted with singular ability by
one of the petitioners in person, Sir Cresswell Cress-
well, with the concurrence of the two common law
judges, decided that the petitioners had altogether
failed in making out their case. We do not blame
the young lady, who, desirous of vindicating the
honour of her family, and fully impressed with the
belief that her cause was just, fought almost against
hope to establish the validity of a marriage which
was stated to have taken place 70 years ago. The
same extenuation, however, cannot be extended to
the co-petitioner, whose conduct was very properly
condemned by the Judge Ordinary, on account of the
trouble, vexation, and expense to w hich he had need-
lessly put a man of honourable and unsullied charac-
ter. But this case may be considered independently of
interests of the parties concerned. It is too noto-
rious that the Divorce Court is crowded with an
amount of business which the Judge Ordinary,
even with all his marvellous quickness and indus-
try, is utterly unable to diminish. The Legislature
confers upon him the power of dissolving marriage;
and at a time when two hundred divorce suits, not
counting proceedings for judicial separation and
probate cases, have been set down for hearing, this
case of Shedden v. Patrick—a niere unsubstantial
claim, as it turns out—stops the way, and occupies,
as we have before said, an entire term. Cases of
the same kind are not unlikely to occur again ; and
if this should be so, the Divorce Court will speedily
become in a worse condition than was the Court of
Chancery in the time of those scandalous abuses
and interminable delays which happily were swept
away by the Acts of 1852. The truth is, that Par-
liament, when it passed the Divorce Act, and sub-
stituted the jurisdiction of an ordinary court for
exceptional legislation by means of a private Act of
Parliament, never anticipated that, instead of three
or five divorces a year, the number, under the faci-
lities afforded by the new system, would amount to
at least as many hundreds per annum. The judicial
strength of the Court was from the first obviously
incompetent to deal with this mass of business. This
new chapter of procedure, according to the usual
English mode *of applying small remedies to great
and admitted evils, has been patched and tinkered by
giving the Judge Ordinary the extraordinary power,
whilst sitting alone, of pronouncing decrees of dis-
solution of marriage. But a new element of delay
has been added. Whenever collusion is suspected
the Attorney-General is to intervene in the suit
to watch the proceedings on behalf of the interests
of public morality. Many divorce cases wilt,
therefore, assume a triangular form, and the Queen's
Proctor and the Attorney-General will be expected,
by preliininary inquiry and by the examination of
witnesses at the hearing, to guard the tribunal'
against the f!tal mistake of dissolving marriages
in cases in which the parties have a common
interest in concealing the factsfrom the judge. The
provisions of the Act of last session, which declares
that decrees of diisolution of marriage shall not be
made absolute, until the period of three months has
elapsed, will be a further cause of delay. Parties,
irritated with the scandal and disgrace which has
been brought upon their family, will communicate
with the Queen's Proctor, and often, on mere sus-
piciOn , the whole litigation will have to be reopened.
These provisions are no doubt wise in themselves,
a,s furnishing some check upon fraud and collusion,
but if they are to be effectual, how can one judge,
who at present is hopelessly overwhelmed with
arrears, be expected to undertake this new branch
of business, and to administer it in a satisfactory
or even decent manner ? If the matrimonial
infidelity of the country is to be estimated by
the number of divorce suits which have been
instituted since January, 1858, not one, but two
or three, divorce judges sitting separately will be
requisite. We do not believe that Parliament has
the slightest intention of incurring any expenditure
for such a purpose. Having once given the remedy,
it cannot go back and tell the poor man that he
must, as formerly, go to the ecclesiastical court,
then to common law, and, finally, to the House of
Lords, to obtain a divorce. The present system,
whether good, bad, or indifferent, in a moral and
social point of view, cannot be worked by a single
judge. The policy of this country is, we know,
adverse to a multiplicity of expensive tribunals. If
any judge could make head against arrears that
judge is Sir Cresswell Cresswell. But it is right
that the public should correctly understand the
position hi which that very learned person is
placed. He not only has to administer justice in a
hundred times as many divorce cases as formerly
came before the House of Lords, but he has in
addition to' decide all those questions of criminal
conversation, and all those suits for divorces a
mensa et thoro which, under the abolished system,
were submitted to the common law and ecclesiasti-
cal courts. We believe that the only way of re-
lieving the tribunal from its present difficulties,
which in many instances amount to a denial of jus-
tice, would be by the employment of ex-judges,
who receive large pensions from the country, and
comparatively make
~no return except in the shape
of occasional sittings in the House of Lords or the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Lord
Cranworth and Lord Chelmsford, for instance,
would confer upon the public a great service if
they could lend a helping hand to Sir Cresswell
Cresswell, and relieve the most recently created of
our tribunals from the scandal and disgrace of
being utterly' and hopelessly unable to meet the
requirements of justice.—Morning Post.

CROWDED TIJEATRES.

IMPORTANT DECISION.

Two cases of some interest to playgoers were tried
yesterday at the Westminster County Court, in
which the question at issue was whether the plain-
tiffs, having paid for seats in the pit, and finding
afterwards there was only standing room, were
entitled to have their money returned. The first
case was that of " Thornburgh v. Smith." The
plaintiff, a Government clerk, sued Mr. E. T. Smith,
lessee and manager of her Majesty's Theatre, to
recover 25.6 d. he had. paid thereatfor a seat in the pit,
which, being so full at the time, he could not obtain.
lqr.:Lewis,treasurerof the theatre, represented defen-
dant. From plaintiff's statement it appeared that on
the night of the Ist inst., a few minutes after the
doors were opened, he and Mr. Bell, a friend, entered
the theatre, and after inquiring of the pit money-
taker if there was " sitting" room, and receiving
a reply " plenty," they paid 2s. 6d. each.; but
on going in, they found every seat occupied, and a
large body of the audience obliged to stand. Not
feeling inclined to do the same, having paid
their money for " seats," they returned to the
money-taker to complain, and were by him referred
to the treasurer, who offered them seats in a box, but
taking them to an extreme end one at the top of
the house, where they could hardly see or hear ;
they would not stop, and requested their money
back, which, being refused, these proceedings were
taken. Mr. Lewis submitted that the money-taker
was not supposed to know the pit was full when
plaintiff and his friend went in, and the seats he
offered them in the box were ss. each. His
Honour said that might be so, but they were not
bound to accept the offer. They had a right to
seats in the pit, for which they had been misled into
paying for by being told there was plenty
beof
" sitting" room; the money must therefore
returned. The judgment was accordingly for the Ar.
plaintiff. The other action was brought b t
Bell referred to, a student of Exeter by
givenollege
,
Oxford, in whose favour judgment was a
on the same grounds.

THE BURYING OF THE ROYAL MAIL
STEAMER COSNAUGHT.

The protracted inquiry Into the circumstances
attending the loss of the above vessel, on her voy-
age from St. John's, NOW Brunswick, to Boston, on
the 7th ult., was concluded yesterday evening, at
the Greenwic Police-court, before Mr:nautical
Traill,
police magistrhate, and Captain Harris,
assessor.
The evidence having been completed,
Mr. Traill said it was not usual to express what
the opinion of the Court was in these inquiries, but
of Trade. In
to make their report tohtehemßigohatrd
that report, however, that
nothing it would contain would be minencondemna-
tion of the officers of the ship, but would contain
suggestions as to cautions necessaryp under similar
circumstances as those
which led to the loss of the
vessel.

Mr. Valiance inquired when the report might be
looked for.

Mr. Traill said it would be forwarded to the
Board of Trade as early as possible ; but now that
the officers of the vessel were known to be acquitted
of blame, there would not be that anxiety there
otherwise would have been.
The inquiry then terminated.

THE JEWEL ROBBERY.—Yesterday Graham, in
the Third Court, pleaded guilty to stealing 60 gold a
watcheinss,
seven gold brooches, four bracelets, and five gol
Sentence wag postponed till next WARM,
d ch.