The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—June 15.

DIVORCE COURT.
ROBINSON T. ROBINSON AND LANE.

The hearing of this petition for a dissolution of
I marriage by a husband against a wife on the ground
of adultery was resumed this morning.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Dr. Addams, Q.C.,
Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and Mrs. Karslake, were coun-
sel for the petitioner ; Mr. Forsyth, Q.C., and Mr.
Coleridge for the co-respondent, Dr. Lane ; and Dr.
Phillimore, Q.C., fur Mrs. Robinson.
At the sitting of the Court some discussion took
place as to whether Dr. Phillimore, who repro
sented the wife, ought not to address the Court
before Mr. Forsyth, who represented the alleged
adulterer, but it was stated that an arrangement
had been made, which need not be drawn into a
precedent, that Mr. Forsyth should begin.
The Lord Ch if Justice said that the wife's being
the principal case, the correct practice would be
for the counsel for the wife to begin ; but the
Court would not interfere with the arrangement
between counsel.
Mr. Forsyth accordingly proceeded, reminding
their lordships that Dr. Lane's honour, reputation,
domestic happiness, and means of existence were
at stake, and that this was the first time that he
had had an opportunity of being heard in his de-
fence. The journal of Mis. Robinson being no
evidence against Dr. Lane, he would at once dis-
miss it as not being in the case. Dr. Lane, a mar-
ried man, with a young wife, was accused of adul-
tery with a woman 50 years of age upon the weak-
, est possible evidence. Dr. Lane, whom he hear-
tily regretted being unable to call, had a number
of female patients, with whom he was in the habit
of walking about the grounds, and there was no-
thing to show that he had ever been more attentive
to Mrs. Robinson—who, it must be remembered,
was au old acquaintance—than to any other lady
who resided iu his house. The evidence of impro-
per familiarity was given by Levi Warren, whom
he would prove to be unworthy of credit.
Auguste Giet, a butler in the service of Dr.
Lane, was then called, and said that after Levi
Warren had been to London in 1856 he told witness
he had seen Mr. Field and Mr. Robinson in Lon-
don, and had told them he had never seen Dr. Lane
with his arm round Mrs. Robinson's waist. Warren
also told witness that he had never seen them in
that position. After Warren left Dr. Lane's ser-
vice he received two letters from him, in one of
which he asked him not to mention what he had
said about Dr. Lane if the case should ever be
brought into court. The witness further stated
that he had never noticed any improper behaviour
between Dr. Lane and Mrs. Robinson. The study
of Dr. Lane was used by the servants as a short
cut from the pantry to another part of the house.
Mrs. Suckling, who was staying as a patient at
Moor-park in September, 1854, said she remem-
bered Mrs. Robinson beimg there on a visit, and
there was certainly no difference between the
doctor's treatment of her and of any other lady.
Dr. Lane and his wife were on excellent terms.
She was about 25 years of age, and was a friend of
Mrs. Robinson. Dr. Lane walked about the
grounds with every patient, both ladies and gentle-
men, by turns. She had only seen him walking
with Mrs. Robinson once, and that was on the
terrace.

Lady Drysdale, the -mother of Mrs. Lane, said
there had been great intimacy between the families
of Lane and Robinson. There was nothing in
the conduct of Dr. Line towards Mrs. Robinson
at all different to his conduct towards other ladies.
She had often urged Dr. Lane to pay kind atten-
tion to Mrs. Robinson. She and Mrs. Lane always
knew when the doctor walked or drove out with
Mrs. Robinson. He was in the constant habit of
walking in the grounds with other ladies besides
Mrs. Robinson.

Cross-examined---Her daughter was a very sweet
tempered person, about 27 years old. She had no
cruse for suspicion. She should say Mrs. Robin-
so❑ was upwards of 50, but she was afraid to say
too much.

By the Court—She thought Mrs. Robinson had
an unhappy home. She was remarkably kind to
witness's little grandchildren, and that led to the
intimacy.
Mr. Reed, a surveyor, produced a plan of the
grounds at Moor-park, from which it appeared
that the summer-house referred to by the witne:s
Warren was not upon an island, and was close to
a path. He also stated that a person standing in
theposition which Warren had described as occu-
pying could not see into the summer-house.
Dr. Mark Richardson, a retired surgeon in the
Bengal army, who was staying at Moor-park in
1856 and 1857, stated that Mis. Robinson visited
there, and that he could not perceive the slightest
difference between Dr. Lane's treatment of her and
of other ladies.

Mr. Coleridge having summed up on the part of
Dr. Lane,
Dr. Phillimore addressed their lordships on the
part of Mrs. Robinson. The charge was that of
adultery with ono person only, and the evidence
clearly established that that person had not bean
guilty of adultery. Would it be reasonable, then,
to dismiss Dr. Lane from the suit, and declare him.
innocent •f the charge, yet to divorce Mrs. Robin-
son on the ground that she has committed
adultery ?

The Lord Chief Justice put the case of a wife
who confessed that she had committed adultery
with a certain person who was in reality innocent,
in order to conceal her real paramour.
Dr. Phillimore said the petitioner did not charge
adultery with any one except Dr. Lane, and there-
fore by Dr. Lane's innocence or guilt he must stand
or fall.
Sir C. Cres3well said, if the confession would
have been evidence against the wife, supposing
the co-respondent bad not been before the con; t,
how could the circumstances of his being before the
court make it no evidence against her ?
Mr. Justice Wiglittnan said if both parties wore
to make a separate confession the argument of the

learned counsel would go to the extent of exclud-
ing both confessions.
Dr. Phillimore continued his argument, dwell-
ing upon the weakness of the oral evidence, by
which no proximate act whatever was proved. He
then referred to the fallacious character of journals
as compared with other confessions. For instance,
the journals of Horace \Yelp ,le contained many
statements which, as had since been proved, he
must have known to be false when they were writ-
ten. This journal had evidently been written by a
woman of so flighty, extravagant, excitable, ro-
mantic, and irritab'e a mind as almost to amount
to insanity. He should contend that it had been
written under the influence of a disease peculiar
to women, which had the effect of producing the
most extraordinary delusions upon the mind of the
patients, and frequently caused them to accuse
themselves of the most horrible crimes. The
learned counsel then read a number of extracts
from the diary consisting chiefly of self-accusations,
of rec)rds of conversations on various subjects with
Dr. Lane and other persons, of her opinions on
poetry, phrenology, and other matters, and con-
taining frequent expressions of her disbelief in a
future state. There were also entries relating to
physical suffering for which she had c..disulted and
been treated by medical men.

Dr. Joseph Kidd, the medical attendant of Mrs.
Robinson, described the malady under which she
was suffering, and said her mind was in a state
of morbid depression alternatinr, with excitement.
Sir Charles Locock, Dr. Bennett, and Dr. Forbes
Winslow were then examined with regard to the
effect of the malady described by Dr. Kidd in pro-
ducing extraordinary delusions, but their evidence
was obviously not of a fit nature for a detailed re,-
port.

- Dr. Phillimore then proposed to examine the co-
respondent, Dr. Lane. He could have been ex-
amined in the Ecclesiastical Court, and their lord-
ships inherited all the power possessed by thai
court.

lhe Lord Chief Justice said the alleged adul-
terer was not a party to the suit in that court. By
the Evidence Act (14th and 15th Viet., cap. 99) no
party to a suit in cases of adultery could be ex-
amined. By the Divorce Act the alleged adulterer,
who was before not a party, was made a party. He
was inclined, therefore, to think that the Court
had not power t 9 examine Dr. Lane.
Dr. Phillimore said if their lordships' opinion
should be against him upon that point he should
pray that Dr. Lane be dismissed from the suit, in
order that he might then be examined on behalf of
Mrs. Robinson.

Dr. Addams and Mr. Karslake wore heard on
the other side, contending that Dr. Lane was sub-
stantially the principal defendant, and relying upon
the terms of the Evidence Act as excluding him
from being examined.
Their lordships took time to consider their dew
cision upon this important point, and adjourned
uutil to-nierrow (this) morning.