The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGE.At CE.

---..----
CONSISTORY COUR P.-MAY 17.

(Before Dr. Lushingtou.)

DAVIDSON V. DAVIDSON.--ADULTERY.-SENTENCE.

This was a suit for a divorce instituted by Mr. Madg-
wick Spicer Davidson, of Hampstead, against Katherine
Ann Davidson, his wife, by reason of adultery.
The parties were married on the 25th of Feb., 1855, at
Long Newnton, Wilts, Mrs. Davidson being then about
20 years of age. They cohabited at Bristol, in Upper
avenue-road, and finally at Paris, where they separated
on the 22d of May 13..4. It was alleged that Mrs. David-
son, while at school at Boulogne, had formed an attach-
ment with a young Frenchman named Em le Lalouette ;
and that the correspondence bt.tween them having been
clandestinely renewed a few weeks after the marriage,
her conduct had undergone a marked change. She
ceased to behave with affection towards her husband_
She became very exl.avagant in her habits. While with
her husband at Paris she told him that she wished to be-
come a Roman Catholic, and she refused to go back
with him to England. Being himself compelled to re-
turn he left her behind, and it was alleged that La-
louette had visited her on the very same night. Mrs.
Davidson's servant, Ann Denman, refused to leave them
together notwithstanding all the efforts of her mistress
to induce her to do so. Mrs. Davidso❑ then said that
" Emilie" had a headache and• would lie down in her
bed. Lalouette accordingly undressed himself and got
into bed. Mrs. Davidson sac by his bedside, kissing,
and caressing him ; sometimes holding his hand in her's,
and sometimes lavinr, her head on the pillow close to

his. At length Denman left the room in order to write
a letter to Mr. Davidson. She was abAent about 20
minutes ; and at stx o'clock she left, them again for two
hours. It was alleged that the adultery had been con-
witted between these intervals.

Dr. Lu.hington now gave sentence. After adverting

to the principle of law with respect to cases of this de-
scription, namely, that there must be proof of a crimi-
nal attachment between the parties, and of an oppor-
tunity of indulging that attachment, the learned

judge proceeded to rliscus the attempts which had be- n
made to impeach the testimony of Ann Denman. On
the whole, he considered that the main facts of that
witness's testimony remained unshaken. There could he
no doubt that Mr. Davidson had been indulgent to
his wife to a fault ; and what had been his return ? She
had behaved with coldness, indifference, and disobedi-
ence. The reason of this it was impossible not to see ;
it was a disgraceful attachment before marriage, and
shamelessly carried on afterwards. It was only too we'd
known that an illicit a-tachment was a cause quit suffi-
cient to sever the strongest ties which the laws of God
or man could consecrate. Mrs. Davidson's alleged
change of religion he treated as a mere pretext. He
fully rfrecopnised the force of a con-cientious religious
scruple ; but when such a scruple was put forward by a
wife, in order to justify a gross breach of duly, he most
be satisfied that at least it way sincere. Of that there was
not the slightest proof. In order to show that Mrs. Da

. -
vidson's desire to change her religion was real, it bad
been contended that she was an attendant a', the church
in Wells street. Of the merits of that'church he knew
nothing. It was a place in which the services of the
church of England were performed by episcopal autho-
rity, and he did not think he was entitled to assume that
attendance in a church of that description was a demon-
strative proof of an inte,tion to adopt the Roman Catho-
lic faith. lie was told that it was a place of notoriety;
but surely it could not he said that because the services
were performed there in the mode and manner alle4ed,
he ought to conclude that everybody who attended them
,vas about to abandon the faith and the worship of the
church of England. Bet, to show the straits to which
the counsel of Mrs. Davidson had been reduced, the
learned gentleman (Dr. Twice) had actually urged
as proof of Mrs. Davidson's intention to leave the church
of Esgland, that she had once known a lady who ba,,i
joined the Church of Rome. He (Dr. Lushington)
could not admit that Mrs. Davidson's pretended
reli-
gious scruples were anything but an artifice to procure.

al opportunity of carrying on the iwrigue with her pa-
ramour. With respect to Mrs. Davidson's proceeding,
on the night of the 22 I of May, there was proof sufficient,
and more than sufficient, of criminal intention; and there
as equally ample proof of opportunity, both on the
night in question and on many subsequent occasions. He
considered that the adultery had been roost clearly est ;-
blishtd, and he must, therefore, pronounce for the
divorce.