The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-03 00:00:00

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRI-
MONIAL CAUSES.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, Mr. Justice
Wightman and the Judge-Ordinary.)
ROBINSON V. ROBINSON AND LANE.-JUDGMENT.
At the sitting of the Court,
The Lord Chief Justice delivered judgment in
this case. His lordship said,—This was a suit for
a divorce a vinculo, on the ground of adultery. The
evidence consisted entirely of admissions made by
Mrs. Robinson herself. In the majority of instances
the diary; in describing the private interviews of
Mrs. Robinson and Dr. Lane, spoke of acts which,
though no doubt of a most guilty character, yet
did not amount to actual adultery. In other in-
stances the language was ambiguous. It might be
taken to import actual consummation or to refer
only to indecent familiarities and caresses, such as
the Court had already referred to, and which, how-
ever criminal, would not justify it in decreeing a
divorce. In one instance language of this sort,
which might be construed into a complete confession
of adultery, was afterwards used under circum-
stances in which it was plain that no such meaning
could attach to it. In no instance could they find
a clear and unequivocal admission of adultery
having taken place. The strongest passage was that
in which the respondent stated, that after one of
these interviews Dr. Lane desired her to take care
to "obviate consequences ;" but even there the
" consequences" referred to might have been those
of discovery or detection, and not those resulting
from an adulterous connection. It was true that
where they were dealing with admissions by a wife
of criminal and indecent familiarities, bordering
upon and, morally speaking, partaking of adultery,
the disposition of the Court would, for obvioui
reasons, be to give the fullest effect to the language
of those admissions. But in this case there were con-
siderations which led the Court to think that the lan-
guage of Mrs. Robinson in her diary must be con-
strued by a different rule. The Court was dealing
with' one whom an ardent imagination and a pas-
sionate nature too often led 'away beyond the bounds
of reason and truth, and who, in all relating to her
intercourse with ineii for whom she had conceived a
partiality, was prone to exaggerate and over•colour
every circumstance which tended to her gratifica-
tion. There was a,striking instance of this in her
interview with Mr. Thom, where she magnified into
the most serious importance circumstances which
were proved to have been of the most ordinary and
trivial character. In the present instance this
tendency would be more strongly brought into play
by the strength and ardour of her passion for Dr.
Lane. It was plain that she dwelt with impure
gratification on the portraiture of these scenes, and
on the details of the guilty endearments and
caresses which she narrated. It was impossible to
say how much of all this might not be the work of
an imagination corruptedby sensuality and dwelling
with morbid satisfaction on its own impure crea-
tions, or how far any ground work of fact might be
distorted or overcharged by the fanciful additions
of the writer. The CoUrt was, at all events, of
opinion that all that came from such a quarter on
such a subject, far from being taken as a ground for
drawing further inferences of criminality, must be
received with very -great allowance and distrust.
Having no other evidence than the statements of a
writer in whose judgment and fidelity to truth in
the particular matter the Court could place no re-
liance, and whom it believed capable of distorting
and discolouring facts to gratify her disordered
fancy and morbid passion, it would have had great
doubt whether, if 'the admissions had amounted to
a clear acknowledgment of adultery, it could have
given effect to them ; but, looking to the ambiguous
character of the expressions, coupled with the reite-
rated complaints of the writer of the absence of
equal ardour on the part of Dr. Lane, it could not,
under all the circumstances of the case, come to the
conclusion that there was any admission of adultery
upon which it would be justified in acting. Enter-
taining this opinion of the evidence derived from
the journal, it would be unnecessary to enter into
the consideration of the evidence given by Dr. Lane,
and therefore the only course open to the Court
was to dismiss the petition.
At the conclusion of the judgment the Lord
Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Wightman retired,
and Sir C. Cresswell proceeded to hear the motions
on the paper.

DICKENS V. DICKENS.
This wag a petition by a wife for judicial sepa-
ration on the ground of her husband's adultery.
The cause has not yet been heard, but a rule nisi
was obtained on Wednesday last to review the
registrar's taxation of the wife's costs. Two ob-
jections were raised against the taxation—first,
that all the costs incurred previous to the petition
had been disallowed ; and, secondly, that the costs
of certain interviews with the petitioner's father,
rendered necessary by the petitioner's illness, had
been disallowed.
Cause was shown• against the rule by Dr.
Swabey, and it was supported by Dr. Phillimore,
Q.C.
Sir C. Cresswell took time to consider his deci.
sion.

STOATE V. STOATE.
Dr. Swabey appeared for the petitioner, Mrs.
Stoatc ; the respondent appeared in person.
A decree of judicial separation having been pro-
nounced on the ground of the husband's cruelty,
the wife now appeared for permanent alimony.
Mr. Stoate opposed the application, on the ground
that he had commenced a suit against his wife for
a dissolution of marriage by reason of adultery.
His lordship, however, thought that was no
answer to the petition for alimony, and, estimating
the respondent's income at £320, awarded the peti-
tioner £BO per annum.

SLATTERIE V. MOODY.
Mr. Slade and Mr. Karslake were counsel for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Smith and Mr. Coleridge for
the defendant.
This was an action of trover to recover certain
goods. The defence set up was a bill of sale, but
which the plaintiff alleged was counteracted by two
bills of exchange.
After a trial which lasted the whole day, the
jury, at a late hour, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff for £4O.
RICHARDSON V. STOREY.
Mr. Slade and Mr. Karslake were counsel for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Phinn and Mr. Poulden for
the defendant.
This was an action for false imprisonment. The
defendant pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Slade said this was an action brought by
Arthur Richardson (by his father), a young man
16 years of age, who was an apprentice to Mr.
Mumby, a chemist at Gosport, to recover damages
for false imprisonment under circumstances which
were completely unparalleled. The defendant was
a lady who kept an establishment for young ladies
about two miles from Gosport. She hadthree assis-
tants, or pupils, of considerable attractions—Miss
Caroline Lampard, Miss Eliza Goodram, and Miss
Mary Clarke. Mr. Mumby had also another ap-
prentice named Dyer, and they had a friend named
Rix. Of course the three young ladies were very
natural attractions to these young men of enter-
prising habits, and they were sure to come together.
They frequented the same chapel, and at a tea-
meeting there had been introduced to each other,
and they had gone home to Mrs. Storey's with the
young ladies, and Mrs. Storey had given them a
general invitation. In the course of time it would
seem that the young gentlemen did not visit
the young ladies so often as they wished,
and they commenced a correspondence of rather
a warm character, and they sent the young gentle-
men some beautifully worked book -markers, having
on each the motto, "Lovest thou me ?" An invita-
tion of this sort was irresistible ; they must have
been unworthy the name of men if they had not
responded to such an appeal ; their visits became
more frequent. The young ladies used to point out
certain verses in the Songs of Solomon. The result
of all this was inevitable. The young gentlemen
were constant in their attendance, but anxious that
Mrs. Storey, who had passed the heyday of youth,
should not know it. One of the young ladies was
a great French scholar, and she wrote some French
couplets apostrophising the moon. On some occa-
sions they were obliged to hide behind the laurels.
Rix in a very foolish manner wrote a paragraph to
the Southampton paper stating that a burglary had
been attempted at Mrs. Storey's ; he also wrote a
second paragraph of the same nature. This put
the police on the qui vine, and a communication
took place between them and Mrs. Storey, and it
was determined to lay a trap. Mrs. Storey called
on Mrs. Mumby and told her she was going to her
sister's and should not be home until ten o'clock at
night. In the course of the afternoon Richardson
was sent out with a parcel to be delivered at Albert-
cottage, near Mrs. Storey's. On the way he saw
Rix, and asked him to accompany him. They went
on, and had to pass Mrs. Storey's house. They saw
a servant at the door, and asked her where Albert-
cottage was. The servant said she did not know,
but would go in and inquire. She went in, but of
) course nothing was said about Albert-cottage, but
the servant returned with a request that the young
gentlemen womld walk in. Miss Clarke was then
away. Richaldson and Rix went into the house,
where they found Miss Lampard and Miss Goodram,
but almost before they had time for a mutual salute
a policeman made his appearance, and said, " You
are the young gentlemen I am in search of ; you
must come along with me ;" and he proceeded to
' handcuff these respectable young men, and walked
them two miles to Gosport, locked them up in the
station-house, refused bail, and kept them there all
night. The next morning they were taken before
a magistrate, but, no one appearing against them,
they were discharged. On Mrs. Storey's return that
evening she asked if the young men had been there,
and if they had been taken, and expressed a hope that
they would be locked up all night. The plaintiff
did not seek for damages, but if the defendant
would make an apology for the outrage he would
be satisfied ; but if she would not, then they must
ask for damages.
The plaintiff was called, and stated the facts
before detailed.
In cross-examination he said he was not paying
' his addresses to any one of the young ladies in par-
ticular, but he made love to them all. They had
not had time to settle down. There had been some
idea of sending Mrs'. Storey a dead cat, but the
• young ladies had recommended them not to do it.
Rix said he wrote his own love letters, some-
times to one of the girls, sometimes to another. He
wrote the paragraphs for the newspaper. They
sometimes threw gravel up at the windows at the
suggestion of the girls.
In cross-examination, he said he had also brought
an action ; the attorney was Richardson's brother.
Had gone in different costumes ; sometimes like a
troubadour.
The next day Mrs. Storey was asked why she
had done this, and she said they had no right in
her house.
Miss Lampard was called—My father lives at
University-street, London. I was a teacher at Mrs.
Storey's. Miss Clarke and Miss Goodram came. I
first made the acquaintance of Richardson at the
tea-meetings. We were introduced there. He es-
corted us home. He left us at the gate. The next
time he came to fetch Mrs. Mumby, he came into
the room for a few minutes. He came again, ac-
companied by Rix. There was music. A greater
intimacy arose, and the two, with Dyer, used to
come and see us. We never paired off. When I
saw the paragraphs I thought they were a hoax.
It was all a joke about sending the dead cat. On
the day in question I don't know exactly what
brought them in. We had not begun to play on
the piano when the policeman came in. He hand-
cuffed the young gentlemen. We did not go off in
a faint. The policeman took them away. It was
about nine o'clock in the evening. Mrs. Storey had
told us she should not be home till ten o'clock. I
had communicated this by note to the young
gentlemen. Mrs. Storey returned a little after
ten, and asked if any one had been. I said,
" Yes, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Rix." She said,
" And I hope the policeman has taken them off."
I told her he had, and they were handcuffed. She
said she was very much obliged to him, and rubbed
her hands. Before we went to bed the policeman
called again, and Mrs. Storey told him to be shown
in. She said to him, "So you have taken those
boys off my premises ?" He said he had. She said
she hoped they would enjoy their night's rest.
The policeman said he hoped they would, for he
had locked them up himself. My father came
down and took me away. He told me had written
to me to say he was coming. Mrs. Storey then pro-
duced the letter. Before he came Mrs. Storey
desired me to write a statement. I silently resisted
for some time, but Mrs. Storey told me I must write
it quickly, as the magistrate would be there shortly.
I wrote a statement at Mrs. Storey's dictation. I
was had in before two policemen, who asked me
several questions. My father was in the drawing-
room above. I went away in two days after.
Cross-examined—l was a teacher. Mrs. Storey
had spoken to me some time before this about the
correspondence, and threatened to write to my
father. She made us promise not to speak to them
again. We saw them seven or eight times after,
about 9in the evening. They never stayed longer
than half an hour. We have met them at half-past
6in the morning. There was no promise of mar-
riage that I know of. There was no particular
attachment that I know of. I wrote to Dyer, but
he was not a particular favourite. They came just
inside the door. The servants were in the secret,
and posted the letters for us. I went out with Mrs.
Storey with a candle to look for them. I knew
which side of the garden they were on, and I took
her to the other side, as I did not wish to show
them up. We had no one else sighing for us.
Stones were thrown up at the windows, but my
window was too far off. I did not tell Mrs. Storey
of it. I worked a book marker and sent it to
Richardson. There had been grapes stolen from
the garden, but the young gentlemen were after
something sweeter than grapes. (The court was
convulsed with laughter during this examination,
in which the witness most heartily joined.)
Miss Clarke heard the policeman tell Mrs. Storey
that he had her orders for taking, the young men
into custody. Mrs. Storey said Mr. Mumby was
raging and foaming like a little dog chained up,
and was trying to injure the policeman. She did
not deny that she had given the order.
Cross-examined—l left because I would not pro-
mise not to renew the acquaintance henceforth and
for ever. I had not been in the garden with them
so often as the others. I have renewed the acquaint-
ance, with my father's perfect knowledge and
consent.
Mr. Phinn then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant. His friend had attempted to bring a great
deal of ridicule into the case, but he th ought it one
of a most serious nature. This lady had been put
to the ordeal of having two actions brought against
her, and it was attempted to visit her with costs
that would prose her ruin. They had all been
young, it was true, and knew the pranks of boys,
but he would ask them whether what they had
suffered had not served them right ? They would
hardly like to intrust their daughters to the care of a