The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-27 00:00:00

LAW INTEL LIGENCE.-B Cw. 26.

COURT FOR J iiVORCE AND MATRINIO-
7tAL CAUSES.
(Before Lord Chic S Justice Cockburn, Mr. Justice
Wightma n, and Sir C. Cresswell.)
CURTIS V. CURTIS.
In this case th e Judge-Ordinary, after a trial,
which occupied seN -eral days, had pronounced a rk.
cree of judicial separation, on the prayer of Ylrs.
Curtis, upon the g round of cruelty.
Mr. Curtis, the :respondent, now applied in per-
son for directions as to the mode of prosecuting an
appeal from that decree.
The Court said that notice of appeal having been
served on the other side, the case would be set down
for trial in the us ual manner. The evidence would
not be reheard, b ut would be taken from the notes
of the learned judge. The appellant would have
to establish that ahe evidence did not warrant the

decree.
Mr. Forsyth, Q.C., for Mrs. Curtis, applied for
directions as to c osts.
The Chief Just ice said no order could at preFdent
be made upon t} tat point.
PEARCE V. PEARCE.
Dr. Phillimore Q.C., on the part of MrA, Pearce,
the petitioner, applied for an order allo-xing her an
annual sum by way of permanent s!,imony-. The
Court had pronounced a degree, -apon the wife's
petition, dissolving the marreage on the grounds of
adultery and desertion. The respondent derived
an income of £.500 a-yeas from his profession. He
was a barrister,,.-and liF„d been enabled to complete
his education lay: his wife's money. She had about
£4O a-year of er own.
The Lord Chief Justice—Let the husband put
£llO to thaiz, and make up her income to £l5O.
ROB iNsoN V. ROBINSON AND LANE.
Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., Dr. Addams,
Q.C., an
.d Mr. Karslake were counsel for the peti-
tioner, Nr..r. Robinson ; Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Dr. Phil-
lin -ore, Q.C., for the respondent, Mrs. Robinson ;
an d Nr-r. Forsyth, Q.C., and Mr. Coleridge for the
.)-respondent, Dr. Lane.
.As several months have passed since this case
was last brought before the Court, it is necessary
to state briefly the circumstances out of which it
-arose. The petitioner, Mr. Robinson, is a civil en-
gineer, and in Feb., 1844, married a widow, Mrs.
Dansey, the respondent. She had an income of
£4OO or £5OO a year, which was settled upon her.
Among other places at which they, resided after
their marriage was Edinburgh, and there, in 1850,
'they became acquainted with the co-respondent Mr.
Lane. In 1854 Mr. and Mrs. Robinson took up their
• residence at Reading, and renewed their acquaint-
ance with Mr. Lane, who was then at the head of a
hydropathic establishment at Moor-park, near Farn-
ham. His wife and her mother resided there with
him. In 1857 Mr. Robinson, during an illness of his
wife, unexpectedly discovered three or four manu-
script volumes in her handwriting, purporting to be
a journal kept by her for a period of four or five
years. The entries in that journal appeared to him
conclusive evidence that his wife had been guilty of
adultery with Dr. Lane on various occasions in the
autumn of 1854, and he instituted a suit in the ec-
clesiastical court, and obtained a divorce a mensa et
thora. He afterwards presented this petition for a
dissolution of the marriage. Having already pub-
lished the extracts from the journal upon which the
petitioner chiefly relied, it is sufficient to say that,
if true, they were strong evidence of the charges in
the petition. The defence set up on behalf of the
respondent and co-respondent was that the state-
ments in the journal, although they might have a
slight foundation in fact, were substantially false ;
that Mrs. Robinson was labouring under a peculiar
disease, which caused her to imagine events which
never occurred ; and that the entries relied upon
were made under the influence of that disease. The
case was opened on 14th June last, and continued
on the two following days. At the close of the case
for the petitioner an application was made to dis-
miss Dr. Lane from the suit, as there was no evi-
dence against him, and to allow him to be examined
on behalf of Mrs. Robinson. On June 21st the Court,
after taking tine to consider, held that he could not
be so dismissed, and that his evidence could not
be received, contrary, however, to the opinion of
one of its members—Mr. Justice Wightman. The
learned counsel on either side then summed up the
evidence, and the Court reserved its decision. At
the next sitting, on the 3d of July, the Lord Chief
Justice intimated that some members of the Court,
including himself, entertained serious doubts as to
the propriety of their decision excluding Dr. Lane
from examination, and that the case would be ad-
journed in order to allow time for the passing of an
act of Parliament which would set those doubts at
rest. The following clause was accordingly inserted
in the Divorce Act of last session (20th and 21st of
Victoria, cap. 85, sec. 11) :
" In all cases now pending or hereafter to be commenced,
in which on the petition of a husband for a divorce the
alleged adulterer is a made a co-respondent, or in which on
the petition of a wife the person with whom the husband is
alleged to have committed adultery is made a respondent, it
shall be lawful for the Court, after the close of the evidence
on the part of the petitioner, to direct such co-respondent or
respondent to be dismissed from the suit, if it shall think
there is not sufficient evidence against him or her."
Mr. Forsyth now prayed that Dr. Lane be dis-
missed from the suit with costs.
The Lord Chief Justice said the Court thought
there was no case upon the evidence against Dr.
Lane, and were quite prepared to dismiss him from
the suit. They could not at present deal with the
question of costs.
Dr. Phillimore then moved that Dr. Lane might
be examined on behalf of Mrs. Robinson.
The Court assented, and
Dr. E. W. Lane was then sworn, and examined
by Mr. Bovill. He said—l am a physician. I
married a daughter of the late Sir Wm. Drysdale,
in 1847. After my marriage I first resided at Edin-
burgh, and afterwards at Moor-park. Lady Drys-
dale, my mother-in-law, always lived with me. In
the autumn of 1850 I first became acquainted with
Mr. and Mrs. Robinson, in Edinburgh. The two
families became on intimate terms. I have four
children. The last was born on the 7th Oct., 1855.
My wife is about 31 years of age. The Robinsons
left Edinburgh about June, 1851, and were absent
the rest of that summer. They returned in the
autumn, and went away in the following May or
June. Mrs. Robinson was a lady of considerable
literary attainments, and corresponded with lite-
rary men. Our acquaintance was renewed at Moor-
park, when they were living at Reading. In 1853,
when my wife and I went to the Continent, we left
our children with the Robinsons for four or five
weeks. They also stayed with them on other occa-
sions. Mrs. Robinson showed them a great deal
of kindness. I went to Moor-park in March, 18.54.
I took a hydropathic establishment, which is fre-
quented by ladies and gentlemen for the benefit of
the treatment. In the July of that year Mrs. Ro.
binson first visited Moor-park. She came to stay for
the first time in Sept., 1854. She remained for two
or three days. She again came in the following
Oct. She arrived on the 7th and left on the 10th.
Immediately afterwards the Robinsons went to'
• France, and did not return till June, 1855. She
came on the 21st June to Moor-park, and re-
mained until the sth July. She again came on the
10th Oct., and remained until the 15th. In Sep-
tember, 1856, she came over for a day and a night.
She was always an invalid. She consulted me
professionally in June, 1855. She informed me
that she had been labouring under a disease pecu.
liar to women for several years, and that she'
suffered from continual headaches and great depres-
sion of spirits. Her age seemed to between 45 and
• 50. Between 40 and 50 a change takes place in the
constitution of women. The disease from which
Mrs, Robinson was suffering affects the nervous
system. She was a mixture of calmness and excite-
ment. She was exceedingly staid in her demeanour
but was sometimes flighty in her conversation. I
did not prescribe for her, but merely gave; her ad-
vice, and told her she ought to follow a course of
tonic treatment. She never consulted me except on
that occasion. I was in the habit of walking about
daily with the different ladies and gentlemen in my
establishment. The grounds are extensive and
beautiful. All the walks are open to the patients,
and to the servants and to visitors. The neighbours
who are friends also have access to them. One part
of the ground is a thoroughfare between Farnham
and Swift's-cottage. When Mrs. Robinson was at
Moor-park, as she was a very old friend, I was
more attentive to her than to strangers. I walked
about the grounds occasionally
people, with her, and occa-
sionally with other
ahm not aware that I
with walked more with her than
others I walked
with pretty nearly all of them in succession. When
any of the ladies did not appear at breakfast I was
in the habit of visiting them in their rooms. I may
have gone into Mrs. Robinson's room.
The Chief Justice—But I understood she was
there not as a patient but as a friend.
Witness—lf I had known that Mrs. Robinson
was unwell I might have gone into her room, but
I don't remember that I ever did go. I cannot
swear that I never did, bnt I have no recollection
of having done it. She generally had two
rooms—a sitting room and a bedroom, one leading
out of the other. I received a fee from Mr. Robin-
son for my professional advice to his wife. He sent
me a check after her visit of June, 1855. My study
is a room to which all the visitors and patients had
access when they wished to see me. Friends con-
tinually came in and sat with me. It was my pri-
vate room, and any one who wanted to communi-
cate with me came to it.
Mr. Bovill—ln the whole course of your at-
quaintaneewitb. Mrs. Robinson, from first to last,