The Sun.
London, England, 1860-12-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 18, 1860.

our great country have formed the foundation of
the exalted position in which our country now
stands throughout the nations of the earth. (Cheers.)
It is matter of history and of notoriety that the
trade and commerce of our great country had their
origin in the city of London. (Cheers.) We are
essentially a commercial and industrial people; but
we can tolerate no aggression. (Cheers.) We seek
no conquests, but we are ready to defend our rights
and avenge any insult or aggression, from whatever
quarter it may come. (Cheers.) On this occasion,
when the Sheriffs and Lord Mayor are here inviied
as the honoured guests of this great company, we
feel proud of the fact that the city of London has
given birth to that which is the parent of the Vo-
lunteer system—(cheers)—that it was established
at a time when there was no standing army—that
London established this company, which became a
standing army for the city ; and after so many
ages have elapsed this is, indeed, a proud and
happy celebration. (Cheers.) This is a subject on
which I could dilate. The trade and commerce of
our great country have been the founders of an im-
mense empire. We have gone abroad, not for the
sake of aggression, but to establish trade. (Cheers.)
The establisking of trade has led to our becoming
the greatest empire on the face of the earth. It is
owing to our trade and commerce that the British
language is now spread over the whole surface of
the globe, and it is from that that we may hope
hereafter to see the establishment of our glorious
religion. We may hope that what has taken place
within a very short period may tend to enlighten
one of the largest empires existing in the world.
(Cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN—I feel that it must be a subject
of great regret to all present that his Royal High-
ness the Prince Consort has not been able to attend
here this evening. (Cheers.) I assure you I wish
extremely that either his Royal Highness or
some other person more experienced than myself
had occupied the chair on this occasion—(No, no,
and cheers)—in order that more justice might have
been done to the toast I am now about to propose
—the continued prosperity of the Hon. Artillery
Company. (Loud cheers.) Had this anniversary
occurred in 1850—[A Voice—" Or in 1857."]—
well, or in 1857, only three years ago, instead of in
the present year, it is more than probable that it
might have passed over without any special obser-
vance. But a great change has taken place within
the last few years. I believe lam correct in say-
ing that in 1857 only two Volunteer corps existed
in this country—the Victoria Rifles and the Artil-
lery Company—(cheers)--whereas in 1860 a Volun-
teer army, counting in its ranks some 150,000 effi-
cient soldiers, has sprung up. (Cheers.) Under
these circumstances we cannot be astonished that
the Hon. Artillery Company, proud of their ancient
origin, determined te celebrate an anniversary that
redounds so much to their distinction and credit as
a body. (Cheers.) Perhaps I may be excused if
I give you a very brief outline of the history of the
Hon. Artillery Company. (Cheers.) I will say, in
passing, that I am happy to think that my task is
very much alleviated in consequenee of the leading
article which appeared in the Times newspaper
this morning—(loud cheers)—and which I hope
you have all read. (Renewed cheers.) We are here
to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the revival of
the company by James 1., but we claim a more
ancient origin. We are direct descendants of an
armed body which existed in this city in the reign
of Henry VIII. They peformed good service in the
troubled times of Elizabeth, and did duty at 'El-
bury Fort at the time of the Spanish Armada.
Even James I. calls them " His Ancient Artillery
Company of London." So that we could not have
been very young in those days. (Cheers.) From
that period to the present the company has
continued to exercise, under successive war-
rants from different Sovereigns, and has in-
variably been commanded either by the Sove-
reign or a Prince of Royal blood. (Cheers.)
During the Civil War, in the reign of Charles I.
and the Commonwealth, the company espoused the
side of the Parliament. During the Commonwealth
they were commanded by General Skippon, and
they tended much by their gallantry at the first
battle of Newbury to save the Parliamentary army
from defeat. It was in 1638 that, after ,having per-
formed their military exercises with very great
efficiency before the Lord Mayor and the civic
authorities in Merchant Taylors'-hall, they received
at their hands as a reward the lease of their present
ground in Finsbury, which we have held ever since,
and in 1640 they moved thither from their old exer-
cising ground. (Cheers.) At the restoration in
1660, James, Duke of York, afterwards James 11.,
became Captain General, and from that period to
the end of the 18th century the company maintained
its position as an exercising armed body. They
were frequently called upon to assist in preserving
the peace of the city, and on several occasions
received the thanks of Parliament, an well as of the
civic authorities. (Cheers.) In 1798 the possibility
of an attempted invasion being anticipated, the com-
pany formed part of a force of 8,000 who, under
command of Lord Harrington, was specially told off
for the defence of the metropolis. (Cheers.) In
1799, on the 4th of June, the birthday of George
111., they were part of a force of 800 volunteers
who were reviewed in Hyde Park by the King.
Again, in 1803, before his Majesty, when 30,000
volunteers were present, the Artillery Company
mustered over 1,000 strong. (Cheers.) On these
occasions, as at the review before her Majesty
last June—(cheers)—the Hon. Artillery Company
took the place of precedence due to their rank
on the right of the line. (Cheers.) In January
last upon the death of Lieut.-Col. Fitzroy, whose
premature end was much deplored by all who had
the pleasure of his acquaintance, and by none more
than by his comrades in the Hon. Artillery Corn-
pany—(cheers)—her Majesty, on the recommenda-
tion of his Royal Highness the Prince Consort, was
pleased to appoint me to the vacant Lieutenant-
Colonelcy. (Cheers.) At that time the company
mustered 444, but I am proud to say the same
spirit that has so strongly manifested itself through-
out the eoantry for the last year has not been want-
ing in the Hon. Artillery Company. (Cheers.) We
have since that time increased our numbers by
nearly 300 new members. (Cheers.) I am happy to
think that we have also improved in military effi-
ciency. (Cheers.) Thanks to the spirit and effici-
ency of certain members of the company, we have
now, in addition to our gun division, a very effi-
cient troop of horse artillery. The guns were
furnished to us by the Government, but the horses
and the equipments are the sole property of the
members themselves. (Cheers.) I find that during
the year 1860 to the present time there have been
124 musters of the regiment for drill and other
military purposes, exclusive of musketry and recruit
drill. I have now most imperfectly given you a
slight sketch of the history .of the Hon. Artillery
Company from the time of Henry VIII. to the pre-
sent day. I trust that every member of it considers,
as I do, that it has an honourable and ancient cha-
racter which it is our duty to maintain. (Cheers.)
To effect this, let all ranks, civil and military, unite
in working together for the common good of the
body. (Cheers.) For myself lam duly sensible of
the importance of the command intrusted to me,
and no efforts of mine shall be wanting to maintain
the efficiency and credit of the corps. (Cheers.) I
give you "Continued prosperity to the Hon. Artil-
lery Company."

The toast was drunk with all the honours.

The SECRETARY, Mr. Tahourdin, observed that,
as the organ on this occasion of the regiment, he
respectfully thanked his lordship and the noble
and distinguished guests present, for the compli-
ment paid to the regiment by their presence, and
their cordial language on the occasion. He had in-
tended to give an outline of their history ; but every
successive speaker had anticipated him, and cut the
ground of Some favourite topic from under him.
Lord Rokeby led the van—Sir James Duke fol-
lowed. The Lord Mayor deprived him of the tell-
ing point that this company originated when no
standing army existed, and he was driven to draw
upon Mr. Highmore, the historian of the company,
whose zeal led him to carry back the company to

- -
the times of David and Jonathan. In the 20th

chapter of the First Book of Samuel, it was recorded
that, after shooting the preconcerted signal of three
arrows, Jonathan "gave his artillery to the lad,
sad said, Carry it into the city." (A laugh.) He

did not propose at that hour to deduce the genea-
logy of the regiment from the days of David. He
would content himself with claiming an origin lost
in the obscurity of antiquity, and:with the augury
that, whenever the political Cadmus of a neigh-
bouring Empire, who had sown the dragon's teeth,
and found them spring up an armed body, should
venture to encounter the roused lion of England,
shoulder to shoulder would be the word among the
Volunteer armament of England, and his vaunted
legions would be ruthlessly swept back and engulfed
like the host of Pharaoh in our protecting seas.
(Loud cheers.)
Major ROBINSON proposed " The health of the
President, Vice-President, and Treasurer."

Alderman COPELAND, as treasurer, responded in
feeling terms.
Various other loyal toasts were given and an-
swered, and the company separated at a late hour.
Mr. llarker was toastmaster.

LAW INLELLIgENCE—Dec. 17.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Priva, at Guildhall, before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
HOOPER T. AVARDE.

This was an action brought by Miss Hooper, for-
merly of Brighton, to recover damages for assaults,
and on other counts against the defendant, Mr.
Warde, a gentleman of fortune residing in Clop-
stock Park, Warwickshire, in the neighbourhood of
Shakspeare's birth-place, Stratford-on-Avon.
The declaration stated, Ist, that the defendant
assaulted the plaintiff, cast her into prison, and
there kept her for some time ; 2dly, that he on seve-
ral occasions, assaulted, beat, wounded, and ill-
treated her; and, idly, that the defendant converted
to his use, and wrongfully dispossessed her of
trinkets used by her for the decoration of her per-
son, that is to say, jewellery, and of books and
wearing apparel of the value of £4OO and upwards.
Plaintiff also sued the defendant in counts for
money, comprised of money lent, money paid for
him, and money on an account stated.
To the Ist, 2d, and 3d of those counts the defen-
dant pleaded not guilty, and that the plaintiff first
assaulted him, whereon he necessarily committed
the alleged acts in self-defence. In another plea
he said the goods mentioned by the plaintiff were
his property ; as to the money count he pleaded
not indebted; and as to the sth count, he pleaded
that before the action was brought he had satisfied
and discharged the plaintiff's claims.
On those pleas the parties joined issue.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Honeyman ap-
peared as counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Hawkins,
Q.C., and Mr. Coleridge conducted the case for the
defendant.
Mr. James stated the case, and then called evi-
dence.

Miss Hooper, a good-looking woman, apparently
between 30 and 40 years of age, deposed that she
is plaintiff in the action, and that the defendant, a
gentleman of independent fortune, residing in the
county of Warwick, had been separated, as she un-
derstood, about twelve years from his wife, who is
still living. At the time, some years ago, that
he became acquainted with plaintiff, she was
living with her mother at Brighton. She first
saw him one evening that she was waiting
in the street, in expectation of meeting a
young man with whom she was keeping company.
Defendant addressed her and induced her to comply
with his request to go with him to his seat in War-
wickshire, and live with him nominally as " nurse-
maid," to take care of his children by his wife. She
consented, and she continued to live with him down
to May, 1859. They lived together as husband and
wife, in which latter character she passed. She had
altogether seven children by him, and five of them
are still living. She accompanied him to Paris, and
one of the children was born in that city. The birth
was noticed in Galignani's Messenger. When
defendant first accosted her in Brighton, and ascer-
tained from her where she lived and obtained her
permission to walk and converse with her, he told
her that he was separated from his wife, and having
let her into a knowledge of much of his domestic
history, he engaged her, as stated, " nominally" for
the purpose of taking care of his children, at £l6 a
year. On their return to Warwickshire, defendant,
who became jealous of her, treated her on several
occasions with great unkindness. Her first improper
intimacy with him arose after he had had an hyste-
rical fit. She was then his sole attendant. She after
that lived with him openly as his wife, up to May,
1859, when his treatment of her became so brutal as
to compel her to leave him. He on one occasion took
gravy out of the dish and threw it over her, and he
on another occasion seized a billiard cue, and beat
her on the back and face with it, and hurt her.
She told him ho should pay for it, and he knocked
her down and cut her. His quarrels with her were
frequent, and ho on one occasion locked up silver
forks, and wished her to eat her dinner with
a steel folk. She refused, and he then knocked her
down. On another occasion that he used her with
violence, her shoulder was dislocated. He on an-
other occasion wished her to sign some deed, or
document, and she refused to execute it, and locked
herself in her bedroom for safety. He sent for the
police, and she said she would not open the door
for £50,000. She had a case of pistols and a double
barrelled gun loaded for her defence, in the room,
and when the police and others attempted to take
her she seized the double barrelled gun, and de-
clared she would shoot the first man who dared to
approach her. She was threatened, if she did not
go down and sign the document, that she would
have handcuffs placed upon her. She, however,
resisted, and the police, alarmed by the " double
barrel," were afraid to act, (Laughter.) She re-
fused to sleep with defendant in consequence of an
intimacy which she suspected existed between him
and one of the servants. He ill-treated her because
she refused, and with an archery bow which he had
in his room, he struck her. She was obliged to
have medical attendance. It was imputed by defen-
dant that one of the children did not belong to him,
but she declared he was the father of the child.
She would not have submitted to such repeated ill-
treatment, liut from a desire to remain with her
children. Plaintiff further stated that the defendant
on another occasion approached her in his dressing
gown, with a eart•whip in his hand, and having
upbraided her about the contents of some letters
that he charged her with passing to some parties
of whom he suspected her to be intriguing—a
charge which she at the time denied, he used the whip
violently on her. She threw herself on the ground
and he then withdrew and returned into the
house. She left his house the next day, and went
to Stratford, and there took up her abode.
In cross-examination, Mr. Hawkins elicited that
the plaintiff had become addicted to drinking, and
that she intrigued with a boy named Williams,
little more than 14 years of age, who was first a
sort of helper in the grounds, and who was after-
wards taken into the house for the alleged purpose
of attending to the children's carriage.
In re-examination by Mr. James, as to the man-
ner in which the intrigue between her and the
boy Williams originated, the plaintiff gave her
answers in a low and indistinct, and apparently
embarrassed tone of voice, in which she was under-
stood to say that her intrigue and improper inti-
macy with the boy took place in compliance with
the request of Mr. Warde, the defendant,
The Lord Chief-Justice—Do you mean to say
that the defendant, Mr. Warde, told you to allow
the boy Wiliams to have improper intercourse
with you?
Plaintiff—Yes.
The Lord Chief Justice ( with a look of surprise)
—" Yes." Where did it occur ?
Plaintiff—ln the bedroom.
The Lord Chief Justice—Where was Mr. Warde
then ?

Plaintiff—ln the room.
Tho Lord Chief Justice—Was he in bed ?
Plaintiff—Yes.
The Lord Chief Justice—What o'clock was i
hen?

Plaintiff—About six o'clock iu the evening.
The Lord Chief Justice—What six o'clock in
the evening ?
Plaintiff—Yes.
The Lord Chief Justice—Was the room in dark-
ness ?
Plaintiff—Yes.
The Lord Chief Justice—ls the boy Williams
hero ?

Plaintiff—Yes.
The Lord Chief Justice—Who brought him here ;
has he been brought here by you ?
Plaintiff—Yes.
The Lord Chief Justice—ls he in court ?
Plaintiff—Yes.
The Lord Chief Justice—Let the boy, Williams,
leave the court.

[Williams, who is a witness for the plaintiff, here
left the court, and was ordered to be conveyed to a
room and there detained.]
Examination resumed by his lordship—Was it
your habit to go to bed so early as six o'clock ?
Plaintiff (embarrassed) did not distinctly answer.
Lord Chief Justice—Was it Mr. Warde's habit
to go, to bed so early P
Plaintiff (evidently confused) did not distinctly
reply.

A Juror—She may, my lord, have been intexi-
cated, and perhaps may mistake the time.
The Lord Chief Justice—Did you know that it
was Williams that was in the room at the time ?
Plaintiff—No, not then.
Lord Chief Justice—And when did you discover
that it was Williams ?
Plaintiff—Afterwards.
Lord Chief Justice—Was he undressed ?
Plaintiff—No; he had his clothes on.

Lord Chief Justice—And you say Mr. Warde

told you to admit him to take liberties with you ?
PI ain t iff—Yes.
Lord Chief Justice—And that Mr. Warde was
present, in the room or bed ?
The plaintiff here became much embarrassed,
and showing symptoms of fainting, by loss of
colour and sinking in the witness-box, she was
told by his lordship to be seated, and the further
examinations and proceedings of the trial were ad-
journed till to-morrow morning (this day).
The plaintiff was four hours under examination.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury
SMITH T. SMITH AND LIDDARD.

This was a suit instituted by Mr. Thomas Brown-
ing Smith, M.D., praying for a dissolution of
marriage with his wife, on the ground of her adultery
with the co-respondent, and he also claimed
damages.
Mr. Cripps and Mr. M. Loyd were counsel for the
petitioner; Dr. Spinks and Mr. Younge for the
respondent; and Mr. Murphy aid the Hon. E. C.
Leigh for the co-respondent.
It appeared from the statement of counsel that
Dr. Smith and his wife were married at Sparsolt,
Hampshire, he being 35 and she 32 years old at the.
time. Dr. Smith had resided at Bedford-street, and
subsequently at 1, Berkeley-gardens, Kensington,
where he practised his profession, and they con-
tinued to cohabit until about the middle of last year,
during which time they had four children, the eldest
of whom is 15 years old. Both respondents plead( d
denial. In 1856 Dr. Smith received Mr. William
Liddard, the co-respondent, into his house as a medi-
cal pupil, he being at the time 17 years of age, and
he remained at Dr. Smith's until the spring of 1859,
when he went to Germany in company with his
mother, and took up his residence there, where he
had been educated in the doctrines of the sect of
Moravians. From the great disparity of years
between Mrs. Smith and Mr. Liddard, neither the
petitioner nor any of his family entertained any
suspicion of impropriety on their parts until Mr.
Liddard's return from Germany, when he called at
Dr. Smith's. On ascertaining that Mrs. Smith was
at home he sent her a note, and went into the draw-
ing-room. Mrs. Smith was in the parlour with her
husband and children, but on receipt of the note she
went to the drawing-room, and remained alone with
Mr. Liddard for about half an hour, when she went
up stairs to her bedroom, where she remained for the
day, and it was noticed by one of the servants that
she was in the greatest distress of mind. After Mrs.
Smith left Mr. Liddard he had a short interview
with Dr. Smith, and was seen running away from
the house. Dr. Smith desired a female servant to
go to his wife, and she remained with her that
night. On the Ist of May, 1859, the day after .Mr.
Liddard had called, Dr. Smith received from him
the following letter :
" 10, Clarendon-road, Notting-hill.
" Sir,—l received your letter and the others. I feel that
yoi are right, and you have indeed been trusting and con-
fiding in one who has acted as a serpent towards you—one
who, allowing himself to be blinded by sin, has acted with-
out one particle of honour, and poisoned the happiness of
his benefactor. Wo-ald that I had felt all that at the time ;
hat I'll say no more, for you can only read it with contempt,
as an attempt to deceive you—as some new lie. May He
before whose throne we shall shortly have to appear and
answer for our every thought and action, may He have
mercy on one who has deserved none. May He also enable
you to pity and forgive the unworthy sinner, however you
hate the sin.
"I, William Liddard, of No. 10, Clarendon-road, Not-
tiag London, acknowledge and confess that I hav e
during about these last two years had at times criminal
connexion with the wife of Dr. Browning Smith, who is
at present living'at No. 1, Berkeley-gardens, Kensington,
London.
" May 10, 1859." " WILLIAM LIDDARD.
On the same day Mrs. Smith wrote the follow-
ing letter to her husband :
" 1, Berkeley gardens, Mor. day, May 10.
" I am so completely overwhelmed with grief and shame
that I know not how to address you. If you have ever
known what it is to feel perfectly miserable, and to know
that misery is entirely brought on by my own shameful be-
haviour to one of the kindest and best of husbands, you may
imagine how -very, very unhappy I feel; and generous as
I know you to be, still I cannot, dare not, hope you will
forgive, but I mast kneel down to my Maker and to you
to implore that you will do so, for mercy sake. I fear your
good advice hitherto seems to have been thrown away on
such a wicked person as I bave-been' and how solemnly I
promise, if ever I should be restored to your affections, I
believe I shall know how to value one so kind and good,
for indeed I have been very unhappy, and richly deserve
to feel so; and I would now give all I have to be allowed
just to kiss your hand, for you cannot tell how unhappy
and miserable I am. Do pray forgive lee."
Another letter was also read from Mrs. Smith
repeating her entreaties for forgiveness.
Dr. James Clark, M.D., . Penton-street, Penton-
ville, proved the marriage, and stated that he had
known Mr. and Mrs. Smith for years, and in 1850
he was on a visit at their house for some weeks.
They appeared to live on very good terms, and Dr.
Smith was very kind to his wife. He saw them fre-
quently in 1852, and he remembered seeing Wm.
Liddard, and he appeared about 17 or 18. Dr.
Smith was now 51, and Mrs. Smith was some years
younger. On one occasion Mrs. Smith complained
to him that Wm. Liddard bolted his door at night,
and refused to open it when she asked him.
Upon cross-examination he said that Liddard was,
treated like one of the children of the family.
The complaint about locking the door was a few
mouths before Mrs. Smith left her husband. His
impression was that she made the complaint because
she was alarmed at his locking thd door. He be-
lieved that Mr. Smith was not present, but he
would. not swear it. He could not swear what led
to her saying it. They all sat up late at Mr.
Smith's. He never saw Dr. Smith disqualified
from attending patients, although he had
seen him occasionally tipsy. (Laughter.) Mr.
Lidtlard frequently attended. Dr. Smith's patients.
Mrs. Smith indulged in the use of morphia and
opium to great excess, but he never saw her carried
to bed insensible. Dr. Smith lamented this habit,
and spoke of its disastrous consequences to Mrs.
Smith and himself. Mr. Liddard was in the habit
of going to parties with Mrs. Smith without Dr.
Smith. The latter had disposed of his practice at
Kensington. He never' heard him express a wish
to get rid of his wife in consequence of her habit.
He and Dr. Smith occasionally smoked in Mrs.
Smith's bedroom, but he was not aware that Lid-
dard ever did so. (Here witness identified the
handwriting of the letters produced.)
Hannah Stone deposed to Mrs. Smith's having
described Mr. Liddard as an ill-natured fellow be-
cause he would not open his bedroom door to her
the night before, when Dr. Smith was out. They
had previously been talking about robbers.
Mrs. Jane Browning Smith, sister of the peti-
tioner, said that Mrs. Smith said something which
induced her to believe that she used to allow Lid-
dard to come into her room, and she remonstrated
with her on the impropriety of her conduct, but,
not suspecting anything criminal, she said nothing
to her brother about it. Her brother never sanc-
tioned any familiarities between his wife and Mr.
Liddard.
Mrs. Laura Liddard, mother of the co-respondent,
stated that she resided at 10, Clarendon-road, Not-
ting-hill, and that her son was about 22 years old.
She had seen Mrs. Smith very rude to him, pinch
him, and strike him indelicately. He was very
cross to her, and said, "You had better mind wha

you are about." She complained of his unkindness
and abruptness. She said he was more like a great
girl than a man, and had shown her her arms,
which were bruised and pinched, for she said he
would not take a joke. When witness mentioned
the matter to him he told her she had better mind
her own business, as she did not know what he had
to put up with. In the summer of 1858 Dr. Smith
suggested that Mrs. Smith should go to Mar-
gate with her son, and she and two of her
children accompanied them there. They lodged in
the same house. One morning she heard her son,
who slept overhead, slam the door. She heard
Mrs. Smith call to him to open the door, to which
be replied two or three times " I shan't," and she
heard him add " Put it under the door." She saw
Mrs. Smith come down stairs, and she said " I only
went up to carry him his shirt," but she had
nothing in her hand at the time. She was dressed
in her petticoat and shawl. In the spring of 1852
she went with her son to Germany, and while
there he received a letter in Mrs. Smith's" hand-
writing, which he refused to read. Some time
after her return, when Mrs. Smith had left her
husband, she saw her at her sister's, and she said
to her "A pretty thing Willie has been about," to
which witness replied " Oh, it cannot be true."
Mrs. Smith then said she wished she could die, and
in the presence of her sister said she wanted to see
her (witness's) son, and that she must give her his
address.

Some other evidence was adduced of a corrobo-
rative character, which closed the petitioner's case.
No witnesses were called for the defence, and
counsel having addressed the jury, the learned
Judge summed up.
The jury returned a verdict that Mrs. Smith had
been guilty of the adultery, with damages of one
farthing.

Sir C. Cresswell made the rule nisi, dissolving
,he marriage.

LATHAM V. LATHAM AND GETHIN.
This was a petition of Geo. Latham, an engineer,
praying for a dissolution of marriage on the ground
of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, Sir
Richard Gethin, an Irish baronet, and claiming
damages.
The respondents pleaded a denial. •
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Pritchard were
counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. Swahey and Mr.
Busby appeared for the respondents.
It appeared shat Mr. Latham married his wife
in 1849, anethat they had a family. They coha-
bited. in Lancashire and elsewhere until
1854, when he accepted an appointment in India
as assistant engineer on the Madras Railway,

at a salary of £soo,which was afterwards increased
to £BOO a year. His wife was at the time far ad-
vanced in pregnancy, and he was obliged to leave
her behind. About three months after his departure
she gave birth to a child. She was at the time re-
siding at Marelin-cottage, Hounslow, and received
monthly remittances of £l2 10a. from her husband,
and she received also £lBO from the agents of the
Madras Railway Company for the purpose of
enabling her to proceed with her family to India,
which she framed excuses to her husband for not
doing. Some time after her confinement she a•iver-
tised for a lodger, and a gentleman took iler apart-
ments, under the name of Gray, at a rent of Bs. a
week. This gentleman was the co-respondent, and
he continued to reside with her for some time. An
improper connexion was alleged to have been com-
menced and continued between them, and on the
2d Nov., 1856, she gave birth to a child, of which
the co-respondent was the reputed father. It ap-
peared that the co-respondent had been an officer
in a cavalry regiment. This improper connexion
having come to the ears of the husband, he discon-
tinued her allowance, removed the children from
the custody of the respondent, and adopted the pre-
sent proceedings.
Witnesses were called in support, and it was
deposed that Sir Richard Gethin was in the habit
of sitting up late with Mrs. Latham ; that she had
been seen in his room when not properly dressed ;
and that she had stated that he had made her a
present of a pair of garters.
A letter from the respondent, admitting her
guilt, was also produced.
Mr. Bushby addressed the jury for tie co-respell,-
dent, contending that there was nothing in the
testimony adduced to criminate his client, or to
entitle the petitioner to damages, as it appeared
from his own showing that she surrendered her
virtue on very easy terms. '
The jury returned a verdict for the petitioner,
with £l5O damages.
The learned judge suspended the decree until he
considered the subject of alimony for which the
counsel for the respondent applied.