The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-21 00:00:00

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before Sir J. P. Wilde and a Special Jury.)
BAKER V. BAKER AND GUYS.

This was a suit instituted by Capt. Baker, an officer in
the army, for a dissolution of his marriage with his wife,
on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent, who
was in business at Plymouth as a "medical electrician."
Both defendants denied the adultery, and the respondent
pleaded in addition cruelty and adultery by the petitioner
The parties were married in 1856, and cohabited until
1861, when they separated, and the respondent became
acquainted with the co-respondent, with whom she was on
very familiar terms, visiting him frequently, and ultimately
taking up her residence with him at his house at
Plymouth. She was alleged to have had a child by him,,
and was living ix his house up to the present time. The
case came on yesterday, and several witnesses were called
to support the petitioner's case.
The hearing of the case was resumed this morning, and
the respondent's case having been closed, and in the course
of which evidence was given to prove that the petitioner
ill-treated his wife, and was guilty of adultery, rebutting
evidence now was adduced.

Sir R. Collier and Dr. Spinks, Q.C., wore counsel for the
petitioner ; the Queen's Advocate and Mr. Mathew for the
respondent, and Dr. Swaby for the co-respondent.
Dr. Stewart stated that he was a medical practitioner at
Plymouth for several years. He was acquainted with
Captain Baker and his wife, both of whom hs attended
professionally, and visited as a friend in 1860 and 1861 at
Alma-place. They appeared to bo on very friendly terms
as far as ho could see, and Mrs. Baker never made any
complaint to him of ill-treatment by her husband. He re-
membered the occasion of Mrs. Baker leaving her husband
in June, 1861. Mrs Baker came to him one evening
afterwards at nine o'clock and said that she wanted to
return home the same evening. He advised her to go to a
lodging until the morning, and said that she should recol-
lect that Captain Baker said "if once she left his home she
should never set her face in it again," and that he was of a
very excitable temper. Mrs. Baker forced herself into the
captain's house through a pantry window. The captain
was not drunk on one of the occasions deposed to by a
witness yesterday, but ho was very much excited. On the
occasion when the adultery of Captain Baker with Eliza-
_ .

Beth Lugg who attended him while he was suffering from
gout he was incapable of committing the offence charged.
Ho was still further incapacitated from the commission of
the offence, as he had at the time either delirium tremens
or was actually labouring under the disease. Captain
Baker used to drink, and he hadknown him to be in a state
of drunkenness for a week, and he had known him to
abstain from drink for six months, but that was very ex-
ceptional.
In cross-examination the witness said that he was a very
intimate friend of Captain Baker, with. whom he dined
yesterday, and that ho was one of his sureties for the costs
of this suit.

The evidence having closed, the Queen's Advocate ad,
dressed the jury, summing up at considerable length.

Sir R. Collier replied on the whole' ease.
His Lordship deferred summing up until to-InorrOw, and
the court thou adjourned.