The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-06 00:00:00

I said I had come at the request of Mrs. Lloyd. He
accused me of having turned against him, and said
that Mr. Carew, the lawyer, had told him that he
was a fool to tell me the very thing that was most
against himself. He said, " How I loved that girl !"
meaning his wife; and I said it wanted little to
bring them together again, for she was destitute.
After a time he said, " Why does she not pay you
your account ? she has £lOO a year." I said,
" Good God ! and you an officer in her Majesty's
service ; will you allow her to live on the wages of
seduction ?" He partly stripped his coat off, and
said, " This uniform must go to Maidstone Gaol,
and that is how I will pay." I was indignant, but
my indignation did not prompt me to tell him that
Mrs. Lloyd had had a child.
After some letters, which had been referred to in
the opening speech, had been read, the plaintiff's
case was brought to a conclusion.
Mr. O'Malley submitted that the plaintiff must
be non-suited, inasmuch as she had not made out
her case. The Court of Exchequer had held, in
Johnson v. Sumner, that the onus lay on the plain-
tiff to establish that the wife had express or implied
authority to pledge her husband's credit.
Mr. Justice Williams said, the contention was
that the adultery had been condoned ; and, if that
were so, then Mrs. Lloyd's case came within the
ordinary rule of a woman living apart from her
husband without due provision.
Mr. O'Malley agreed that that was so.
Mr. Justice Williams said it never was intended
that a case of this kind should be tried during the
sittings in term, when the judge could not sit late ;
and as this was the last day of the sittings, he did
not think that plaintiffs who sued for money de-
mands should be put off. The present case could
not be finished to-day, and therefore he would
adjourn it at once, so as to allow him to dispose of
some of the ordinary cases, and come back after the
Middlesex sittings to finish this case. He was of
opinion that there was evidence for the plaintiff to
go to the jury. If the defendant's counsel pleased
he might address the jury now, and produce his
evidence on a future day.
Mr. O'Malley accordingly addressed the jury for
the defendant, and asked for their careful attention
upon the ground that this was one of the most
serious cases that could be imagined, for if their
decision was adverse to Captain Lloyd, the effect
would be to hang round his neck for life a woman
who had dishonoured him in every way. If this
had been an ordinary action for debt he should not
have deemed it necessary for him to produce any
evidence before them, for he did not think there was
any gentleman in the jury box who gave credence
to the extraordinary evidence which had been given
for the plaintiff. It was the duty of the plaintiff
to show either that Captain Lloyd had given his
wife express authority to pledge his credit, or else
that the position in which she stood in reference to
him gave her an implied authority. All the letters
which had been read, as far as he could under-

stand, showed distinctly that Captain Lloyd
rep-tdiated any liability for his wife's debts.
It was remarkable that no letter was pro-
duced of a later date than 1853 ; but the
letter above all others which he should have
liked to see was that which Captain Lloyd wrote
when on his return from India, in which he pic-
tured the fancied happiness which awaited him.
He regretted that he could not lay before the jury,
because it was written by a third pariy, the letter
which first led Captain Lloyd to believe that there
was something wrong on the part of his wife. It
appeared that this woman had not been surprised
into an adulterous intercourse, but that she had sat
down at Guernsey, deliberately, to write to Mr.
'Winslow to meet her in London, for the purpose
of such an intercourse, she well knowing at the
time that Mr. Winslow was a married man with
the claims of a family on him. She abandoned her
child, she abandoned her home, and went travel-
ling about the Continent with Mr. Winslow,
living with him as his wife. That was;the greeting
which she prepared for her husband on his return ;
when he expected to find her ready to welcome
him. When Captain Lloyd arrived in this country
he could obtain no tidings of his wife, notwithstand-
ing every exertion, and he, consequently, sent his
boy to Miss Davis's, and sold his house and went
to sea again. It was not till some time afterwards
that he heard of her through her brother. As t 4
the condonation which was alleged, it was not
enough to prove simple forgiveness on the part of
the husband; but what must be proved was, that
he had reinstated her in her position as his wife.
All his letters showed that it was his unwavering
determination not to reinstate her in that position,
and all the facts pointed the same way. They had
never lived together after this alleged condonation,
and she was not allowed to be with their boy. The
only night which it was pretended Captain
Lloyd passed in her room was when she was
suffering from the effects of the poison which
she had taken to destroy life. That poison
she would never have taken if Captain Lloyd
had consented to live with her. He hoped
in charity—for they heard that this unfortunate
woman had been out of her mind—that her own
imaginings had appeared to her as truth, and that
she had not wilfully tried to deceive the jury.
Captain Lloyd would deny, upon his oath,
that he had ever had any connexion with his wife
since he left England in 1847. As to the third
child, of which he was said to be the father, Cap-
tain Lloyd had received some anonymous informa-
tion about it. But the first thing certain that he
heard on the subject was yesterday, when Mrs. ,
Lloyd made her statement in the witness-box. It
was said that that child was the fruit of inter-
course which had taken place between Captain
Lloyd and his wife in the sitting-room of the hotel
in Chatham, but he would prove that all through
1856 Captain Lloyd had not seen his wife. The
third occasion on which there was said to have
been intercourse was on board the Edinburgh,.
which was extremely improbable, and he should
show that she only remained in the ship during
the time that was necessarily occupied in obtain-
ing her removal.

Mr. Roberts, who had returned into court with
his daybook, was recalled. He said—l find my first
visit to Mrs. Lloyd, after her confinement, was on
the 16th, instead of the 27th of September. The
child was a seven or eight months' child.
Mr. O'Malley, in continuation, commented upon
what he considered the unsatisfactory evidence
given by Mr. Roberts, and said, that after the de-
fendant s evidence had been given it would be for
the jury to say whether anything had been done
after the adultery to re-establish this woman in
her position of wife; and even if so, still after all
this, whether she had not been guilty of a secon
adultery, in consequence of which her third child
was born.
At the conclusion of the speech the further
hearing of the case Was adjourned until Tuesday
next.