The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-23 00:00:00

married at Ludlow, in Shropshire, where the respon-
dent's parents were residing, and lived together for
eight years at Hungerford, in Berkshire, after
which they removed to Holton. The petitioner
took a house at 1, Woburn-place, Russell-square,aS
his private residence. One evening, about the mid-
dle of August, 1860, the petitioner came home ev
the usual hour, and found a note from his wife t,o
.
the effect that she had gone to her mother at Lan_
low, where she proposed remaining for a few dais.
This was on Friday, and she went to her mother!,
and remained till the following Tuesday, when 510
left with the ostensible object of returning home'
The petitioner saw nothing more of her, but she
was traced to 3, Western-villas, Ealing, with a gee-
tletnan who went by the name of Barrow, but 0(1
had subsequently been lost sight of, and the coure
had dispensed with personal service. Lettcre were
read from the respondent to her mother, in
she admitted having formed an adulterous inter-
course, but that she was perfectly happy, and lell
one letter she said, with reference to the marrieg
settlement, that this and " the owner of 1, Woburn.place might go to Jericho." (Laughter.) It sca,'
also deposed that the petitioner was proud and lona
of his wife.
The Court pronounced a decree nisi with nests'
TAYLOR Y. TAYLOR AND URQUHART.
This was a suit by the husband for a dissolution
of marriage, on the ground of his wife's
adultery
with the co-respondent, a captain in the army' t
which both defendants pleaded denial. The re'
spondent did not appear by counsel.
an
Dr. Swabey was counsel for the petitioner, a
Mr. Paget for the co-respondent.
Dr. Swabey stated the case. Mr. John Rowland
Taylor, the petitioner, was married to the respond
ant on June 3, 1860, at St. George's, Hanover'
square. There were some peculiar eircumstanae°'
for it appeared that the petitioner had a connoliit
with the respondent before his marriage, anu,he
similar intimacy subsisted between her and
co-respondent for some years. The petitioner re-
sided with his mother at Bristol, and being anli°B
to conceal the fact of his marriage placed the re;
spondent in a cottage at Cotham, a suburb, Wile.%
he visited her regularly. The co-respondent wrote
to her, and the letters were addressed to a female
servant. Ultimately he went to Cotham and spear
two nights at the house without the knowledge °,
the petitioner, he and the respondent occupying the
same bed, and ultimately she eloped with him) au
had not since returned to her husband.
This narrative was confirmed by evidence ; but
the course of the cross-examination, it was elicited
that the petitioner consented to his wife bearing rbe
name of the co-respondent after the marriage, as
i
signing as a reason that it would be the mewls
more effectually concealing the marriage from ll'
mother.
Sir C. Cresswell said the case required some On;
sideration, for although connivance had not been
pleaded, it appeared very strange that the petitioee
should have allowed his wife to go by Captain Vnri;
quhart's name, and he did not think the roe".
given satisfactory. It had been proved in the e;
dance that the petitioner behaved kindly tosvard,
his wife, but that was not the point to be considere
but whether there were such acts on his part .
would induce the belief that he had been guilty
connivance, and justify his dismissing the petitio''
Judgment was accordingly deferred.