The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 8.

COURT OF PRORATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special* Jury.)
EVANS V. EVANS AND ROBINSON.

Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, and Mr.
Harrison were counsel for Mr. Evans, who prayed
for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of his
wife's adultery with Mr. Robinson ; Mr. Edwin
James, Q.C., and Mr. Deans, Q.C., fcr Mrs. Evans;
Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. Hodson for Mr. Ro-
binson.

At the sitting of the Court Mr. Edwin James
called Charles Frederick Field, who said that he
was frequently employed by eminent solicitors in the
detection of fraud. On the 12th of January, 1854,
he was:engaged by Mr. Evans to watch Mrs. Evans,
for which he was to receive 15s. a-day and 6s. a-day
extra if he gave satisfaction. That meant if he de-
tected them, or if Mr. Evans was satisfied with his
exertions. He was to have 12s. a-day for travelling
expenses. His engagement was to expire upon the
detection of the parties, and if he did not detect
them was to continue for three to six months, but
he would probably have kept on until they were
detected. He watched Mrs. Evans at Cheltenham
from January to the 12th March. About 9in the
evening of the 4th July he met Mr. Evans in Hyde-
park, and they went to Dr. Jones's, in Manchester-
square. Either Mr. Evans or Dr. Jones told him the
parties were detected. The entry in his diary was
that Mr. Evans told him, but he was not sure that
it was correct. It further appeared from the diary
that he watched the house in Bryanston-street on
the sth of July from about 2 to 4 o'clock, and saw
a tall young man, whom he afterwards discovered
to be Air. Mylius, come out. He afterwards saw
Ellen Davis come out, but he did not see Mr.
Robinson. He then described the arrangements
he had made with King and Grocott for the pur-
pose of detecting Mrs. Evans. He was not exa-
mined at the first Liverpool trial. He had entered
in his diary that the witnesses gave their evidence
in a most excellent manner, but the jury found a
verdict for the defendant, Mr. Robinson. He
was examined at the second trial ; the wit-
nesses again gave their evidence in an excellent
manner, and the jury found for the plaintiff, Mr.
Evans, with ,500 damages. He was not called at
Guildhall. Mr. Evans, he added, told him that
while Mrs. Evans was in the Edgeware-road he
had employed another retired detective, named
Griffin, to watch her movements. Field also said,
in answer to Mr. Huddleston, that he had been 25
years in the public service, had received a pension,
which he still enjoyed, and during that time never
had a report made against him nor a stain cast upon
his character. He denied that 6s. a day extra was
to be at all dependent upon his detection of Mrs.
Evans, and he gave an explanation of his acciden-
tal absence on the previous day when he was called,
but did not answer. He accounted for his not hav-
ing noticed Mr. Robinson come out of the house on
the afternoon of the sth of July by saying that' in
sauntering up and down he frequently turned his
back upon it. He denied that he had in any way
improperly influenced any of the 'witnesses.
Dr. Deane and Mr. Huddleston having commented
on the evidence in behalf of their respective clients,
Mr. Baron Martin summed up. He said that the
questions they had to decide were, first, whether
Mrs. Evans had committed adultery with Mr. Ro-
binson in 1853 and 1854; and, secondly, whether
in March, 1851, Mr. Evans had wilfully deserted
his wife without reasonable cause. The plea of
desertion was, he supposed, founded upon the 21st
section of the Divorce Act, which provided that the
Court should not be bound to pronounce a decree of
dissolution in a case where the petitioner had been
If, however, they thought that
guilty of desertion.
adultery had been committed, they would probably
be also of opinion that Mr. Evans had ample cause
for refusing to live with his wife. The case was one
of considerable difficulty. This was the fourth time
that it had been submitted to a jury, and it was to
be hoped that it would now bo finally decided.
There were four principal epochs in the case to
-which they must direct their attention. The first was
the period previous to the marriage, which was im-
portant; because, if they believed the evidence as to
the improper familiarities between the respondents
at that time, they would have less difficulty in com-
ing to a conclusion as to their conduct after the mar-
riage. If their intimacy
.had been as close as
was alleged before the marriage, it might occur to
the jury that its renewal after Mrs. Evans had
lived with her husband five months, and had re-
turned to her home dissatisfied with him, and after
Mr. Robinson had been separated from his wife,
was sufficient to explain what was said to have
subsequently, occurred. The second important
period was the fortnight during which Mrs. Evans
lodged with the Phillipses in the Edgeware-road,
and it was for them to say whether any inference
was to be drawn fromthe conduct of Mr. Robinson
in taking lodgings for a married woman of 29, pro-
viding himself with a latch-key, and paying fre-
quent visits toher not accompanied by his mother or
sister, although they lived within a short distance.
The third part of the case depended on the evi-
dence of Munn, who spoke to a positive act of
adultery close to a wall at Cheltenham, and it was
for them to attach what weight they pleased to it.
The fourth period was that during which Mrs.
Evans was lodging in Bryanston-street, in 1854.
It was difficult to say what a man who believed
that his wife had committed adultery might or
might not do for the purpose of detecting her ; but
beyond a doubt, he ought well to consider what he
was about before he employed such a person as
Field, for by so doing a very strong prejudice was
raised, and justly raised, against his case. Of all
the people m the world the people of England had
the greatest objection to anything like a spy sys..
tern. To have men running after them wherever
they went and making notes of all their actions
was what they held in utter abhorrence. Every-
thing. of the kind was held in the greatest detesta-
tion in this country. At the same time they must
not reject the evidence of the persons employed by
Field as his spies, unless they were satisfied that it
was untrue. The most important witnesses who
contradicted it were the servant, Ellen Davis, and
the Rev. Mr. Mylius. The learned judge then
read over the whole of the evidence, and concluded
by telling the jury that the case was to be decided
entirely by their independent judgment.
The Jury retired at a quarter after 6 o'clock, and,
after about a quarter of an hour's deliberation, found
'that Mrs. Evans had committed the adultery
charged, and that Mr. Evans had not deserted her
without reasonable cause.
Verdict for the petitioner.