The Sun.
London, England, 1866-07-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE---July 3.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde.)
CAVENDISH V. CAVENDISH AND ROCHEFOITCAITLD.
In this case, which was a suit instituted by the husband
for a dissolution of his marriage on tho ground of his wife's
adultery with the corespondent, the court, after hearing the
evidence in the case, pronounced a decree nisi on the 16th
of last mouth. From the evidence then adduced it appeared
there were two children the issue of the marriage, a boy
and girl, and the boy lived with his Jaimer and the girl
with her mother, who was living in adultery with the co-
respondent at Baden Baden, he being secretary to the
French embassy at Darmtadt.
Mr. Hodgson now applied on the part of Mr. Cavendish,
the petitioner, for an order of the court to enable him to
procure the custody of his daughter, Emily Frances Ida
Cavendish, who was stated to be 14 years of age.
Dr. Swabey opposed the application, and in support of
his opposition read several affidavits, the most important
of which was from a medical gentleman residing in Berne,
which was to the effect that the yonlig lady in question
was of delicate health, as also of an excitable temperament,
and that the separating her from her mother and removing
her into a different climate would be most prejudicial to her.
The learned Judge, however, said that he considered he
no u gt
hhet toea
egerea n thetuo rdd eg
eaaptpil e dnifeorr. ali Tt
yhee
ne vtihdee npceeelicited x
t ef
the
mother, and the husband being by law entitled to the
charge of his children, he had no hesitation in granting the
order. The order would therefore be that Mrs. Cavendish
hand over the child to the person whom Mr. Cavendish
might appoint to receive her, and whose name would be
given into the registry, within four days after the service
of such order upon her.
ROBERTSON V. ROBERTSON AND SOTHERN.
This was a suit instituted by the husband for a dissolu-
tion of his marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery
with the co-respondent, who is the celebrated actor at the
Haymarket Theatre.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Sergeant Bal-
lantine and Dr. Spinks), now appeared on the part of the
co-respondent, and moved that the petition be struck off
the files of the Court. He did so chiefly on the strength of j
an affidavit by the
petitioner himself. In that affidavit,
Mr. Robertson, the petitioner, stated that he was married
to the respondent in 1855, that after their marriage they
went to New York, and that in August of the following
year they found themselves in Richmond, Virginia. While
there his wife committed adultery with a • person of the
name of Lester, with whom she eloped to Australia, and
that in 1862 ho saw them living there as man and
wife, they being connected with an operatic company. He
came to this country in 1864, and in April last he filed a
petition in that court charging the co-respondent with
having committed adultery with his wife in March, 1856.
In explanation of the manner in which that charge was
made the learned counsel stated that in the early part of
last year a libel of a scandalous character appeared against
Mr. Sothern in a publication called the Spiritual Magazine.
In consequence of that criminal proceedings were insti-
tuted by Mr. Sothern against a person of the name of
Coleman. Tho case came on for trial at the Old Bailey in
March last, when Coleman, who had put upon the record
justification, on the case being heard, stated that he could
not establish any part of that justification, and made an
apology, which was accepted by the other side, a fine of
£5O having been at the time inflicted upon him by the
presiding judge. The same article, or, at all events, one
to a like effect, seemed to have appeared in another publi-
catiori, called the Spiritual Times, for which similar pro-
ceedings were instituted against a person of the name of I
Cooper.. He made an apology, and bound himself to give
Mr. Sothern no further annoyance, and which was
accepted, as in the previous case. That happened on the
9th of April, and two days after Mr. Elothern was served
with the citation in the present case. These libels and this
suit were, he therefore contended, got up to insult and
annoy Mr. Sothern, Robertson, the petitioner, being simply
made a tool of in the hands of others. The adultery was
alleged to have been committed two years previous to the
suit being instituted, and ten years after the petitioner had
arrived in this country from Australia, while at the same
time it
well
such known
an that Robertson had not a farthing
to action with. But at all events his
own affidafit now set the matter at rest. In that affidavit,
of which the learned counsel stated the purport, he said
that previous to the commencement of these proceedings
he was living at a place called Esther Hall, Deptford, being
an accountant out of employment, where he paid some 3s.
a week for his lodging's. While there he was waited upon
by two persons, siraDgers to him, who took him to Harley-
street, and also to May Fair, where they procured for him
a change of apparel, and who by their influence had him
placed in the office of the Cash Payment Association (Li-
mited), which is situated in Waterloo-place. About April
the 6th last he was visited there by a person who was a
stranger to him, and who arranged to meet him at Dr.
Smith's offices in the Temple, on the subject of procuring
a divorce from his wiff?. He went there on the 6th April,
and he saw the stranger who had waited on him, and Dr.
Smith. He told the latter that ho had seen his wife living
with Lester, in Australia, in 1862; that he believed she
was still living with him, and that as there would be no
difficulty in obtaining a divorce by making Lester the co-
respondent there was no use of making Mr. Sothern a
party to the case. He was, however, told that he had better
cite Mr. Sothern first, and the other party afterwards. He
now, however, believed that there was no ground whatever
for making Mr. Sothern a co-respondent, and he desired
that his petition should be struck off the files of the court.
The learned counsel went on to state that he had also an
affidavit from Mr. Sothern denying in the most emphatic