The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-21 00:00:00

having of the, Doctor's creed.. The Ultramontanists
.are wroth. Of course they are; they will be wroth
with any one of whom they cannot make a tool.
Bltt let Sir Robert be of good cheer ; the country
wiiJ sustain him, and with that at his back, and
with right in his hand, and with truth on his
tongue, ho need not care for all the Callenites at
this side the Flaminian Gate. We are glad he has
come to us."

The Evening Mail, Warder, Packet, Western
Star, Perry Sentinel, Derry Standard, and other
Conservative papers have articles to the same effect
as the above.

LAW I N TELLIG ENCE.—Nov. 20.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BUTLER V. BUTLER.
The bearing of this petition by a wife for a disso-
lution of marriage on the ground of her husband's
adultery and cruelty was resumed at the sitting of
the Court. The evidence was taken or. Friday and
Saturday last.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott (with whom was Mr. G.
Browne), for the respondent, commented upon the
evidence of the petitioner in support of the allega-
tions of cruelty, and submitted that her statements
were in many respects untrue, were very much
exaggerated, were uncorroborated, and were con-
tradicted in many points by independent testimony.
The learned sergeant then contrasted the evidence
of the petitioner and of the respondent with respect
to the four occasions upon which. according to Mrs.
Butler's version of the transactions, she had been
assaulted by Mr. Butler, and contended that Mr.
Butler's account of them was not only the more
probable, but was also corroborated by trustworthy
witnesses. He also referred to the evidence of Han-
nah Sims, the only witness in support of the charge
of adultery, and contended that she was unworthy
of credit. The result was that the petition ought
to be dismissed.
Dr. Spinks (with whom was Mr. Murray) replied
on behalf of the petitioner. Ho admitted the diffi-
culty of establishing a charge of adultery by the
evidence of such a witness as Sims, but it was not
denied that she was a notorious prostitute, and that
she was employed to do some work in Mr. Butler's
house during the absence of his wife. That circum-
stance raised a presumption that her evidence as to
the adultery was true. With regard to the charge
of cruelty, the learned counsel reminded his lord-
ship that it was admitted that Mrs. Butler had on
more than one occasion left her home, and com-
plained to the husband's relatives of his conduct,
and that she had been ill after some of the quarrels.
There must therefore have been some substantial
ground for her charges. He accused Mr. Butler of
continuing his cruelty to Mrs. Butler in this court
by false imputing to her that she was in the habit
of taking too much to drink.
His Lordship said he thought there was no
ground for that imputation.
Dr. Spinks continued his comments upon the
evidence in support of and in answer to the charge
of cruelty, and submitted in conclusion that the
charge had been completely established.
The Judge Ordinary said, that if he had been of
opinion that the case depended on the charge of
cruelty, he should have taken further time to examine
the evidence, after the able argument of counsel.
But as the case did not depend on that point, he
would state at once that he was not satisfied that
the respondent had been guilty of cruelty to his
wife. It was very apparent that the lady was a
person of hysterical and excitable temperament.
The husband was also somewhat excitable, and he
was afraid that they had allowed disputes about
trifles to arise between them, which had, no doubt,
led to a great deal of unhappiness. There were
indications about the case that most of these dis-
putes had been founded in jealousy. His Lordship
then briefly reviewed the evidence on both sides
with respect to the charge of cruelty, and said he
could not safely rely on the petitioner's evidence in
support of that charge. With regard to the other
charge, he thought it would be the rashest thing in
the world to find any man guilty of adultery upon
the evidence of the miserable, wretched prostitute
who had been examined. There was nothing to
corroborate her evidence but the fact of her having
been in the respondent's house, and she was not
taken there secretly and at night, but was employed
openly in cleaning the doors and windows, and was
exhibited to all the neighbours, and attracted the
attention of one of them, who remarked that she
was particularly dirty. It was impossible to sepa-
rate a man from his wife on such testimony. The
adultery not having been proved, there had been
plenary condonation of all the previous cruelty,
even if cruelty had been committed, and the ques-
tion of cruelty was therefore immaterial. He hoped
the lady would now be convinced that her suspicions
against her husband were unfounded, that she
would put a little more control upon her temper,
and that they would Hereafter live together more
happily than heretofore.—Petition dismissed.
BAILEY V. BAILEY AND DELLA ROCCA.
Thomas Farmar Bailey prayed for a dissolution
of his marriage with Eufrosina Falcini Bailey on
the ground of her adultery with Luigi Della Rocca.
The respondent denied the adultery, and charged
the petitioner with having committed adultery with
Emma Courage.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Dr. Spinks appeared for
the petitioner; Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr.
Pritchard for the respondent.
Mr. Sergeant Shee applied that the case might
be postponed, on the ground that the evidence of
the marriage and of the identity of the parties was
not complete, and also that the petitioner wished
for an opportunity of producing further evidence
of adultery.
Dr. Phillimore opposed the application.
His Lordship said it would be a great hardship
a charge of adultery hanging over a lady's
eupnless some necessity for doing so was proved.
to keep
Ho would hear the evidence which the petitioner
was now prepared to produce, and then, if he were
satisfied that there was reasonable ground for ad-
journing the hearing for further evidence, he would
order the adjournment.
Mr. Sergeant Shee then opened the case. He
stated that Mr. Bailey was a gentleman of fortune
residing at Hall-place, near Leigh, in Kent, and in
January, 1843, he, being then very young, privately
married the respondent at Naples. They cohabited
first at Naples, then at Rome, then at Hall-place,
and afterwards returned to Rome, where Mr. Bailey
purchased a villa. In 1847 they returned to Eng-
land, and, after staying at Hall-place for a short
time, went back to Rome. They then made a tour
in the Holy Land, and returned to England. In
1850, Mrs. Bailey insisted upon sepa-
rating rherself from her husband. He escorted her
to Marseilles, and she went to live at his villa at
Rome. She continued to occupy that villa—the
Villa Strozzi—until 1853, occasionally visiting
Frascati, Albano, end other places in the neigh-
bourhood. During those years she carried on an
adulterous intercourse with Luigi Della Rocca, a
resident at Rome. All that they knew about him was
that he was a person " about town," so to speak,
at Rome, and a Jew. Evidence would be given of
familiarities between this person and Mrs. Bailey
which would leave no doubt as to the criminal
nature of their intimacy. Some of the evidence
related to other persons, chiefly officers in the
French army who had become acquainted with the
respondent, and were frequently in her society, but
he could not say that the evidence as to these per-
sons was of such a character that the Court would
be warranted in inferring that they had been guilty
of adultery with her.
The affidavits of Giuseppe Romano and Luigi
Landolf were read to prove the marriage at Naples.
The evidence of adultery was contained in tle
depositions of some witnesses who had been exa-
mined at Rome before Mr. TLerry, under a com-
mission from this Court, in which the petitioner and
the respondent joined. These depositions were
very voluminous, and contained a great deal of
irrelevant matter, but their substance may be
shortly stated. The first witness, Felice Stella, had
lived in Mrs. Bailey's service shortly after the
separation from her husband. Mrs. Bailey was
then staying at Albano, fourteen or fifteen miles
from Rome. Luigi Della Rocca and a friend came
to stay in the same house and slept there. There
was a door of communication between their bed-
rooms, and another door of communication between
Mrs. Bailey's room and that of Nina, her confiden-
tial servant. Mrs. Bailey and Della Rocca used to
walk and read together in the garden, and Stella
had seen Della Rocca in Mrs. Bailey's bedroom at
eight in the morning, when she was making her
toilette, and had a bedroom dress on. She never
saw any lady visitors at Albano. A French officer
also visited Mrs. Bailey, and Mrs. Bailey's sister
frequently stayed with her. Stella admitted that
she had been dismissed on account of a dispute with
her mistress about the supply of water. Vincerza
Sordine, who had succeeded Stella as Mrs. Bailey's
general servant at Albano, proved that she once
saw Della Rocca in her mistress's bedroom at seven
in the morning, when her mistress had on a che-
mise, stays, petticoat, and a loose dr( ss. They often
breakfasted and dined together, but she did not
see any familiarity between them. Nina was always
present on these occasions. Giovanni, called "the
Turk," was also in Mrs. Bailey's service during the
period to which this witness's evidence referred.
Valentine Polombi, a coachman formerly in Mr.
Bailey's service, who left England and went into
Mrs. Bailey's service at the Villa Strozzi in 1851,
proved that she was frequently visited, both there
and at Frascati, and at Albano, by Della Rocca and
some French officers. Michelina Lollabettista and
and Lorenza Lollabattista, who had also lived in
Mre. Bailey's Neryiee At different times between