The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 6, 1861.

to assail the right of asylum, which England had

always preserved intact, was a gross outrage upon

,he law of nations. (" No !" and great cheering.)

He was no jurist, but reason and common anse told

him that the deck of every Queen's sh"p was as
much an asylum for the oppressed a 3 any broad
acre in this kingdom. (Loud cheers, and a voice
—" The Trent was not a Queen's ship.") If it
was not a Queen's ship, what was it ? It had a
Queen's officer in charge of the mails. Every offi-
cer wore the British uniform, and the glorious

meteor flag, which never waved save over the dis-
enthralled and the free, Ns as flying at the masthead.
The Trent was a Queen's ship. (Cheers.) If the
American. Ministry had been mad enough to direct
and were mad enough to persist in this aggression,
he could not but believe that the Congress now

meeting would hurl them from power and would
not drive this country to extremity. On the other
hand, if redress were refused, we were prepared.
Let no one say that the honour of the English flag
was not dear to the heart of every Englishman.
(Cheers.) We might hope that our erring cousins

would consider their position, but if they refused

redress, and drove us to take vengeance upon them,
and sweep their navy from the sea, let the respon-
sibility be upon the aggressor, and not upon us.
(Cheers, and partial interruption.) Englishmen,

and Irishmen, too—(cheers)—would stand by their

country. She had a history of which few nations
could boast ; a constitution which, though it might
be improved, was one of which every Briton must
be proud; a national honour which they had main-
tained through long and arduous struggles, and
which they would never allow to be sullied. (Cheers.)

Whatever might be Lord Palmerston's short com-

ings upon reform, every one must be glad that we

had at the head of affairs in the present crisis a man

who, for 50 years, had maintained the honour of
this country unimpaired ; who was not only a
thorough Englishman in heart and feeling, but had
the temper, forbearance, and coolness of a long-
tried statesman ; and who, if any man could do so,

. _
would bring England out of the present entangle-
ment without plunging us into war. (Cheers.) If,
however, every effort failed to preserve peace, and
we were driven to the dire alternative of war, he
was sure that Lord Palmerston would carry the flag
of England throughout that war with greater

honour and safety than any statesman of the present
day. (Cheers.)
Mr. HARVEY LEWIS, in the course of his address,
regretted that the proposal to give an additional
member to Chelsea and Kensington had failed of
effect, and attributed this failure to the lukewarm.

ness of the Government in submitting the measure

Passing over some of the questions touched by his
noble colleague, the hon. gentleman strongly
advocated the abolition of church rates, the
ballot, and an additional measure of reform.
Allusion had been made to Mr. Layard, but that

gentleman, in his opinion, had given extremely
good advice. Reform would be carried in the end
outside the walls of Parliament, and it was there

that the question should now be agitated and de-
bated. In a recent speech Lord Stanley said that
reform could never die, adding that it was a fallacy

to suppose that there was any Tory reaction: The
hon. gentleman emphatically reiterated this opi-
nion, and quoted from a pamphlet written by Sir
Eardley Wilmot, in 1858, enforcing the creation of
a :new metropolitan constituency in Chelsea and
Kensington, with two members, and declaring the
necessity of an extended reform of the representa-
tion. Eulogising the Volunteer force, which he be-
lieved had done much to preserve the peace of Eng-
land and of the world, he said he was anxious that

this force should be independent of the Government;
but it might be a question whether the country
should not provide rifle ranges, which at present

pressed heavily upon the resources of the Volun-
teers. On the question of financial reform and
economy, he advised the constituencies to regard
brilliant speeches less than votes. But he would
never give a vote which would have the effect of
impairing the strength, the might, and the majesty
of England. (Cheers.) They owed this duty not
only to themselves but to those who had borne the
name of Englishmen into every part of the world.
If they permitted that sacred name and character
to be violated, adieu to the honour and glory of
England! His views were, he believed, in entire
accordance with those of Marylebone; but even
' were they not, he would rather abandon the charge
of representing Marylebone than compromise the
honour of England. On the American question
he expressed his deep and ;heartfelt indignation at
the insult offered to the English flag. (Cheers.)

There could hardly be a man in this country who,
looking at the facts, could come to any other con-
clusion than that it was a wanton, unprovoked

outrage upon our flag and upon the sacred
right of asylum which England had always
afforded, and which he believed she would always
continue to afford. (Cheers.) The English Go-
vernment had carried out in good faith with regard
to America the principle of non-intervention, At
first the greatest sympathy was felt in this country
for the Federal States, because it was thought that
they were going to war for a principle—the extinc-
tion of slavery ; but that notion was soon found to be
a mockery and a delusion. So far from wishing to

extinguish slavery, the North were willing to rive
the chains of the slave more firmly than ever, for
they offered to give the South every material gua-
rantee which could be desired for the preservation of
slave property. (Hear, hear.) What, too, was the
condition of the negroes in the Northern States ?
They were not admitted to the rights of freemen.
They were not allowed to mix with the whites. In
even the prisons they were kept apart and had the
most loathsome cells ; in the hospitals they must not
occupy the same wards ; in the churches they must
not worship in the same pews with the whites. Did
such a people deserve our sympathy on the ground
of their regard for the slave ? No ; and if the South
had come forward, and nobly freed their bondmen,
they would have commanded British sympathy every-
where, (Hear, hear.) There had never been nobler
conduct by one nation towards another than by the
British Government and people towards America
since this contest began. Our interests lay on the eide
of the South and not of the North. Before a month
elapsed from this time many a hardworking English-
man who sought for bread would find only a stone,
just because the North had, according to their own
version, illegally closed the Southern ports by a paper
blockade, thus sealing up a great commercial outlet
by which many of our starving fellow-countrymen
would otherwise have been fed, (Hear.) Neverthe-
less, the British Government preserved an honourable
neutrality, whereas from the first moment of the war
the Federal States had treated us with the most
marked insult and indignity. (Cheers.) A war with
England was openly advocated as a means of extri-
cating the North from their difficul ties and a raid upon
the peaceable inhabitants of Canada was recom-
mended. Was this the conduct of a friendly people ?
While the Emperor of the French had been lauded
and bedaubed with flattery for pursuing exactly the
same course with ourselves, every species of insult
had been heaped upon Great Britain. (Hear, hear.)
Hitherto a noble consciousness of strength on her
part had enabled her to resist every provocation,
and he still trusted that peace would not be dis-
turbed. Bat the Federals had in the most brutal
manner stopped a peaceable merchant vessel, carry-
ing the letters of all nations, trading from one neu-
tral port to another,and saiang at the time in neutral
Spanish waters. It could hardly have been sup.
pscooos
outragedmedn tihs
saitona
etnrhase aet
wilonlrve ofprofessedly civilized would have
said
to natiobnesr.ebTelhse. C(oAnvfeodicee.—
rate
"So they are.") Then, if so, they had a right to
that asylum which the British flag had always ex-
tended to political offenders. (Cheers.) The una-
nimity of the English press upon this question had
only been equalled by the unanimity of the English
people, and while all prayed that the inestimable
blessings of peace might be preserved, he was sure
that "peace at any price" was not the desire of the
nation. (Cheers.) The Federal newspapers, not
content with heaping indignities upon us, trusted
much to party divisions in this country as a means
of preventing any war ; but to show that they need
not reckon on this, he would quote the words of
Mr. Disraeli. "It is very true," said the right
hon. gentleman, "that there may havebeenedboth
bmoh-
ments when the spirit of party has allowed
parties in the State to do things which they may

have regretted. But this I will say for both par-
ties in the State, especially when the honour of the
nation is concerned, that then there is no longer
party spirit and personal competition; and that
leading men on all sides, whoever may be the ser-
vants of Crown, are animated by one feeling and
one object—namely, to maintain the greatness and
the glory of their common country." (Cheers.)
He agreed with his noble colleague that
England was singularly fortunate in having just
now at the helm of affairs one of the most ex-
perienced statesmen who ever guided our desti-
nies—one who had passed the greater part of his
life in communicating with foreign Governments—
who therefore well knew the feelings of those Go-
vernments, and who, moreover, was trusted by the
people of England. (Cheers.) Lord Palmerston had
as Foreign Secretary a nobleman who, if ho had not
quite acted up to his old Liberal professions, had
yet made for himself a place in the hearts and affec-
tions of the English people. In the difficult times
which might be in store for us, Englishmen might
feel certain that with Palmerston and Russell in
the Government nothing would be done which did
not comport with the dignity and honour of the
country. (Cheers.)
Mr. WYLD, M.P., in moving a vote of confidence
in tho two members for Marylebone, expressed his
regret that the men of the North—the countrymen
of Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington, were pur-
suing in this country perhaps the most extensive
system of espionage which the world had ever seen.
Northern spies were infesting our public meetings,
and he was told the agents of the Northern Go-
vernment had not been unmindful that the electors
of Marylebone were holding a great meeting that
night. Might not this account for some of the in-
terruptions which had been experienced ?
The motion was seconded by Mr. P. GRAHAM,
and was unanimously carried.

A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the
proceedings, which were more than usually pro-
tracted.

THE Y ELVERTON CASE.

There arc two suits now pending in the Scotch
Courts relating to the marriage, or alleged mar-
riage, of the parties in this case. One is a " deola-
rator of marriage" at the instance of Mrs. Teresa
Lcngworth, or Yelverton, and the other is an
action of " freedom, or putting to silence," insti-
tuted by Major Yelverton. These suits have been
conjoined in one process, which is slowly dragging
on before Lord Ardmillan, one of the Ordinaries of
the Court of Session. A considerable time ago the
case was remitted to proof before a commissioner,
and in Edinburgh and in Dublin a great deal of
evidence has been privately taken to form a record
for the Court. By the Conjugal Rights (Scotland)
Act passed last session, inquiries in cases of mar-
riage or divorce must now be made by the Lord
Ordinary in open court, instead of by a commis-
sioner, the change being adopted with the ♦iew of
facilitating the procedure, which was frequently re-
tarded by appeals taken before the commissioner to
the Court. The proof for Mrs. Yelverton, pursuer
in this case, had been completed before the end of
the summer session, and the proof for Major Yel-
verton, the defender, had been partly taken. At
this intermediate stage the case came before Lord
Ardmillan on Wednesday, for the purpose of pro-
ceeding with the evidence. His Lordship had
on the 16th of November granted diligence at
the instance of both parties as against each
other, to compel their personal attendance,
for the purpose of identification by the
witnesses, Accordingly, Major Yelverton was in
attendance, but Mrs. Yelverton did not appear.
The following certificate was read by counsel in her
behalf:—

Morrion-square, Dublin, Nov. 29.

I beg to state that I have been for some in professional
attendance on the Hon. Mrs, Yelverton. She is suffering
from bronchitis of a severe kind, also from other ailments.
I am of opinion that she could not go to Scotland during the
winter season without the most grave risks to her health,
and perhaps her life.

WILLIAM STOKES,
Regius Professor of Medicine in the University
of Dublin.
Mr. Gordon (who with Mr. Millar appeared for
the defender) said, as he wished to avoid delay in
the case, he proposed to proceed with the examina-
tion of witnesses, reserving his right, in the event
of its being found necessary for the purpose of more
complete identification, to move the court to give
access to Mrs. Yelverton, or rather Miss Longworth,
or require her personal presence, in order that she
might be seen by any of the witnesses requiring to
see her for the purpose of complete identification ;
and that she should come to Scotland for that pur-
pose. It would lead to very great expense and
trouble now to delay the examination of the wit-
nesses who had been brought from Ireland, and he
therefore proposed that they should proceed under
the reservation of his right, in the event of its being
judged necessary in the interests of his client to
move the court for an order to obtain access to her,
or to require her personal presence;
Mr. Fraser, who (with Mr. D. B. Hope) appeared
for the pursuer, said that her counsel were very de-
sirous that she should be present, and they had
communicated to her that desire; but she sent back
word that she was lying in bed unwell. The pur-
suer's absence was a misfortune as much to her own
as to the other side, and in her absence he could not
press so strongly for identity as he should other-
wise have done.

Lord Ardmillan said he did not think it was
necessary for him to say anything on the point at
the present stage.

The first witness called was John Asky Brans-
field, proprietor of the Victoria Hotel, Newry, who
was examined as to the occupancy of some rooms in
his hotel from the 4th to the 6th of August, 1857,
by a gentleman and lady, believed by him to have
been married persons. They had a large drawing-
room, a large bedroom, and a small bedroom, or
dressing-room entering from the large bedroom.
There was only one door entering into the small
bedroom. The gentleman asked for comfortable
rooms, and I ordered him these rooms,—No. 4,
which were generally given to a family. I would
be very sorry to allow a lady and gentlemen to live
in my house if I thought they were unmarried. I
would certainly not give the rooms to unmarried
persons, even though it was the best nobleman of
the land.
By Mr. Fraser—Did you notice how the lady's
hair was dressed ?

itness—Something like the fashion of your wig,
sis. (Laughter.)
Mr. Fraser—Do you mean that seriously, or as a
good joke.
Witness--No; I mean that it was turned up.
Lord Ardmillan—Brushed back from th© fore-
head.

Witness—Just that, my lord. (Laughter.)

Anna Maria Bransfield, daughter of last witness,
corroborated his evidence, and identified Major Yel-
verton. She thought there was something foreign
in the lady's appearance. They remained in the
house two nights, and were charged 4s. 6d. a night
for the rooms they occupied.
Cross-examined—By "something foreign in the

lady's appearance " I mean the way in which she
wore her hair and dress. llcr hair was brushed off
her forehead. lam not sure her hair was brushed
off her forehead when I saw her in Dublin, at the
trial.

Re-examined—l heard the servant say she was a
foreign-looking lady.
Margaret Fagan, formerly chambermaid in Brans-
field's Hotel. She deposed—l was in the large bed-
room once when the lady ani gentleman were pre-
sent. That was on the morning of the day on which
they left. The lady was standing in the room. The
gentleman was in bed. The lady was dressed. I
think the gentleman was in his nightdress. He was
leaning on his elbow in bed. The lady spoke to me

at that time. I don't remember what she said. I

wthaes milootrnloinngg in
. I the room.
settle
I
down
t and was b
ma
ako about t 8 o'clock
upthe be
ds.
I did so when that lady and gentleman were in the
house. I only made one bed during the whole time
they were in the house. I made up the bed in the
large bedroom, and that only. The lady's dresses
had been on the bed in the small bedroom. I never
meddled with that bed during the two nights they
were in the house. I never noticed whether it bad
the appearance of being slept in. I was the only

chambermaid that attended to the apartments No.
4. I should not know either the gentleman or the
lady again.
Cross-examined—The gentleman appeared to be
in his nightdress, and was leaning on his elbows in
bed, with his face towards me. I was in the small
bedroom on both of the occasions on which the lady
and gentleman were in the house. I think the lady
wore curls brushed off her forehead. I have never
seen her since. I was not examined as a witness
at the Dublin trial.

Re-examined—The lady was oddly dressed as I
thought.
Wm, Sangster, hotel-keeper, Rosstrevor, Ceponed
—A gentleman and lady were in my house from
the sth to the 15th of August, 1857. They occu-
pied rooms in my hotel during the whale of that
period, except that the gentleman was away one or
two nights. I would know the gentleman again.
(Major Yelverton was here called into court, and
identified by the witness as the gentleman who
occupied his rooms along with the lady.) I did not
know at the time the gentleman came to ray house
that he was Major Yelverton, but Ido so now. I
was at the trial of " Thirlwall v. Yelverton" last
spring. I saw the lady at that trial. I saw her
while she was giving her evidence, and she was
asked to look at me. I was then satisfied that she
was the person who had been in my house in August,
1857. To the best of my recollection, it was the first
week of the trial that I saw the lady. The lady
and gentleman occupied a sitting room; bed-room,
and dressing-room. There was a bed in the dress-
ing-room. I charged 3s 6d a night on the footing
of the two parties occupying the bedroom as a bed-
room, and the dressing-room as a dressing-room,
and not a bedroom. I would certainly Rot have
allowed them so to occupy the rooms if I bad

thought them not married. During the time they
were in my hotel, I drove the lady to Warrenpoint,
and rather beyond it. Rosstrevor is seven miles
from Newry, and an Irish mile is a good bit more
than an ordinary mile. I believe the gentleman
was away at that time. I cannot say how lady's
hair was dressed, but I should say it was in the
Eugenie style, frizzed back.
Mrs. Catherine Sangster, wife of the last witness
deposed to Major Yelverton coming on the 4th of
August to take apartments, which he said he wanted
for himself and his wife. She supplied sheets for
only one bed. There were no sheets on the bed in
the dressing-room that she knew of. She would
not have let these rooms to a lady and gentleman
but that she believed them to be married.

Cross-examined—When Major Yelverton called
on the 4th of August he saw the rooms. The bed
was in the dressing-room when he saw them.
I saw no lady's clothes in the bed in the dress-
ing-room when I was in it after the rooms were put
in order. I distinctly recollect that Major Yelver-

:on said it was for his wife and himself that he

wanted the rooms. They walked out often. I could
not say if they walked arm-in-arm. We did not
ask their names. No letters came to them while at
my house.
Miss Sangster in part corroborated the evidence,
and was examined as to an entry in her books, in
whieh the name Fitzsimmons was erased and Lang-
worth substituted ; but she could not recollect when
or how the name of Longworth was put in, but it
must have been a good while after the parties were
in the house, and after they had heard something
of who they were.
At this stage the case was adjourned till next
day.

The Court-room was largely attended during the
day.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 5.

BAIL 'COURT.

:Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster.—(Before
Mr. Justice Blackburn and a Common Jury.)
LYONS AND WIFE Y. K NOWLES. -DRAMATIC
REPRESENTATIONS.

The real plaintiff in this action was Miss Swan-
borough, now Mrs. Lyons, and formerly lessee of
the Strand Theatre, against the defendant, who is
the proprietor of the Theatre Royal, Manchester.
The action was brought on behalf of the female
plaintiff, who the declaration stated was the owner
of two dramatic pieces as assignee of the author,
viz., " The Bride of Abydos" and " Fra Diavolo,"
with the full right of representation in them, and it
further stated that the defendant had wrongfully
represented the pieces against the consent of the
female plaintiff, whereby he had incurred the penalty
of 40s. for each representation. The defendant
pleaded, first, not guilty; secondly, he denied the
plaintiff's right in the pieces; and, thirdly, he tra-
versed the assignment of the copyright.
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and
Mr. Thompson were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr.
Sergeant Pigott and Mr. Fonblanque were counsel
for the defendant.

Mr. W. H. Swanborough, the plaintiff's brother
and present manager of the Strand Theatre, deposed
that the two pieces in question, " The Bride of Aby-
dos" and " Fra Diavolo," were written by Mr. H. J.
Byron, and purchased by his sister, who at the same
time took an assignment of the right of representa-
tion from the author in writing, The document
was missed when the alterations were made at
the Strand Theatre about eighteen months ago,
and had not been found since. The permission
for representation was 10s. Gd. per night for first-
class theatres, 7s. for second-class, and ss. for third-
class. The defendant had on a former occasion paid
10s. Gd. per night, and on one occasion he chose to
pay the penalties. Never made any arrangeement
with Mr. Charles Dillon or his agent for the repre-
sentations in question at 7s. per night. When Mr.
Knowles was applied to for payment, Mr. C.
Dillon sent up £5, which was 7s. per night for the
fourteen nights, but it was returned to him. Pro-
ceedings had been taken against Mr. Dillon for re-
presentations of the pieces at other provincial
towns. That was before he left for America.
Mr. H. J. Byron, the author, deposed that he
sold the entire right of representation to Miss
Swanborough, and regularly assigned it by writing.
Mr. Levy, the plaintiff's solicitor, was called,
and proved the correspondence in the case, and the
nature of the proceedings that had been taken
against Mr. Dillon.
This was the plaintiffs case.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott submitted that the plaintiff
must be nonsuited. There was no proof of regis-
tration of assignment as required by the act.
Mr Justice Blackburn said he would not stop
the case, but give the learned sergeant leave to
move on that point,
Mr. Sergeant Pigott described this as a shabby
action towards the defendant, and expressed an
opinion that if the plaintiff had known the real
facts of the case she would not have consented to
the bringing of this action. The fact was that last
summer Mr. Dillon entered into an arrangement
with Mr. Knowles, whereby Mr. Knowles was to
have one-half of the gross receipts for the theatre,
lights, servants, properties, printing, advertising,
&c. Mr. Dillon finding his own company, paying
them, arranging with the authors, and selecting
his own pieces. And in carrying out that arrange-
ment, Mr. Dillon agreed with Miss Swanborough
for permission to represent these pieces at 7s. per
night. The learned counsel called
Mr. Stanislaus Calheam, a comedian, one of Mr.
Dillon's company, who deposed that he made an
agreement with Mr. Swanborough, for Mr. Dillon
at 7s. per night. He corroborated the learned
counsel's statement relative to the arrangement be-
tween Mr. Knowles and Mr. Dillon.
Mr. Thomas Chambers, the defendant's manager
and treasurer; Mr. H. M. Barret, Mr. Dillon's
stage manager ; and Mr. John Shickle, the leader
of the band, were called in support of defendant's
case.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said there could be no
dispute about the facts. Mr. Dillon was to find the
company, and pay them, select the pieces, and cause
them to be performed, without any interference by
Mr. Knowles. The latter was to find the theatre,
servants, lights, and the band, the music being a
necessary part of the entertainment, printing and
advertising, the defendant's servants taking the
money at the doors. The gross receipts were to be
divided between Mr. Knowles and Mr. Dillon,
and the question was whether upon those facts
it amounted to a representation or causing
to be represented within the meaning of the
act of Parliament whereby Mr. Knowles was
liable. He considered it was a question of law, and
not of fact for the jury. He thought it would he
better for him to direct a verdict for the plaintiff
with leave to the defendant to move.
Both the learned counsel assented, and

The jury, by direction of his lordship, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for £2B, leave being re-
served to the defendant to move the court above on
the points of law.

omnibus having been frightened by one of Bray's
traction engines.
Mr. Lush and Mr. J. Browne appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Pren-
tice for the defendant.

The plaintiff was the proprietor of an omnibus
running to Hampstead, and on the 19th June last
he was riding outside another omnibus. When they
were near Mornington-crescent one of the traction
engines, which was drawing a train of trucks carry-
ing earth from the reservoir, which was being
removed from the Hampstead-road, was coming
along. The horses became uneasy, and when they
got near the engine the steam blew off. This ren-
dered the horses unmanageable, one of them pressed
upon the other, and the omnibus was overturned,
The outside passengers were thrown into the road,
and some of them would have been run over by the
engine if it had not been stopped. The plaintiff was
one of those persons, and the injury he sustained
was dislocation of the right shoulder, and contu-
sions on various parts of the body. Ile was attended
by a medical man down to October 29, and he was
not down to the present time fit to act as a conduc-
tor to his omnibus, an employment which he had
followed until the accident.
A number of witnesses were examined to show
that the engine was calculated to frighten horses ;
and they also spoke to many instances in which
horses had been frightened by it.
The Lord Chief Justice directed the jury that the
plaintiff was entitled to recover if the engine, by
its noise and appearance, was accustomed to frighten
horses.

The jury expressed an opinion that the defendant
knew that the engine was of this character, and
they found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £B7.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.)
SITGG V. SUGG AND MOORE.

In this case the petitioner, who is a gas meter
manufacturer, in business at Westminster, prayed
for a dissolution of marriage, on the ground of his
wife's adultery with the co-respondent, a brick-
layer, living at Finchley.
There was no appearance on the part of the co-
respondent, but the respondent pleaded s denial of
the charge, connivance, collusion, adultery, and
cruelty on the part of the petitioner.
Mr. Sergeant Shea and Dr. Spinks were counsel
for the petitioner, and Mr. Day and Mr. Martin for
the respondent.
Several witnesses were called on the part of the
petitioner, from whose evidence it appeared that the
parties were married in Jan., 1853, and that they
cohabited until July, 1860, during which period the
respondent gave birth to four children, three of
whom are living. For some time prior to the sepa-
ration the respondent became addicted to intempe-
rance, and during the absence of her husband she
conducted herself in a manner that induced him to
separate from her, and she went to Totteridge, and
subsequently to Whetstone, to live, taking her
youngest child with her. The petitioner allowed
her 15s. a week, in addition to paying her rent, and
it was proved that he visited her and treated her
with kindness whilst she was living at these places.
However, he received information which satisfied
him that since she left London the respondent had
become more reckless than ever in her conduct, and
that she had on several occasions had criminal in-
tercourse with the co-respondent, who is a brick-
layer, living at Finchley. According to the evidence
of these witnesses the respondent behaved with the
most open profligacy, and had improper intimacy
with several other persons besides the co-respondent.
As soon as the petitioner discovered his wife's mis-
conduct he discontinued the allowance, and took
the child from her custody and adopted the present
proceedings.
For the defence, it was contended that the peti-
tioner had connived in the most disreputable manner
in his wife's dishonour, and that he actually paid
parties to entrap her into the commission of the
adultery with the co-respondent, and that she had
been made intoxicated for that purpose. In support
of this grave charge, a person named Axford, a pot-
man at Griffin, at Whetstone, was called; but his
evidence was merely to the effect that he had re-
ceived £5 from the family of Mr. Sugg to watch
the conduct of the respondent, who was then resid-
ing at Whetstone, and that previously he was ac-
quainted with the fact of the connection subsisting
between the respondent and Moore, and also to her
being the associate of prostitutes, and being in the
company of different men late at night and under
most suspicious circumstances.
Counsel having addressed the jury, the learned
judge summed up.
The jury found that the respondent had committed
the adultery, and that the petitioner was not guilty
of the charges pleaded against him.
The Court then pronounced a decree nisi.
HART V. HART AND FLEGG.

This was a suit instituted by James Hart, a ser-
geant in the Royal Engineers, for a dissolution of
marriage with his wife on thr- ground of her adul-
tery with the co-respondent, and there was no ap
pearance on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner
laid damages at £5OO.
Mr. Inderwiek and Mr. Cutbill were counsel for
the petitioner, and Mr. Bridge attended to watch
the case on behalf of the co-respondent.
It appeared that the parties were married in
September, 1851, and cohabited in different places
in England, where the petitioner's regiment was
stationed, apparently living on very affectionate
terms. There was one child issue of the marriage.

In 1853 the petitioner was ordered to the Mauritius,
and went there, accompanied by his wife. The
climate not suiting the health of the respondent she
returned to England with the consent of her hus-
band, and took up her residence with her father at
Gillingham, Kent. In 1855 she removed to lodg-
ings in Chatham, where she was visited by the co-
respondent, who is a pensioner, and had previously
been a sergeant in the army. The respondent while

living at Chatham went by the name of Steadman,
while she represented the co-respondent, who as-
sumed the name of Kelly, as her uncle. The co-
respondent was in the habit of calling three or four
times a week, and staling for hours in the room with
the respondent, whom he had been frequently seen
to kiss. In March, 1859, the respondent gave birth
to a child, which was chriitened in the name of
Fiegg, and which the co-respondent was heard to
say that he would provide for, adding also that he
would never desert the mother. The petitioner
did not return to England unt O. 1860, and having
become acquainted with what had occurred during
his absence he instituted these proceedings.

It was proved that the co-respondent had some
houses in the neighbourhood of Brompton.
Sir C. Cresswell, in summing up, observed that
the Court was left entirely in ignorance as to any-
thing but the mere facts of the visits of the co-
respondent, and as to his being possessed of some
ten or twelve houses. There was nothing to show
whether the conduct of the respondent was good or
bad before she met the co-respondent, or whether
any peculiar opportunities were offered to the latter
for the prosecution of the criminal intercourse.
The Jury found for the petitioner, with £l2O
damages, and the Court pronounced the decree nisi,
with costs.