The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-10 00:00:00

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before Lord Campbell, Mr. Baron Martin, and the Judge
Ordinary, Sir Cresswell Cresswell.)
SPROT V. SPROT.
Mr. Sergeant Piggott applied to their lordships for a
decree of divorce in terms of the verdict of the jury in this
Case.

Lord Campbell granted the decree of divorce, with costs
against the adulterer, an Italian, and ordered the child to
be given into the custody of the mother.

MARCI{MONT V. MARCHMONT.

This cause, which has excited so much attention, again
appeared in the list this morning. It was an application on
the part of Mr. Marchmont for a new trial. It will be re-
collected that the verdict at the conclusion of the cause
when last before the Court, was delivered in favour of Mrs.
Marchmont, the petitioner, a lady possessed of very large
personal property, and the respondent, Mr. Marchmont, was
a dissenting minister, belonging to the Congregational or
Independent denomination, and also engaged in literary
pursuits.

Upon the judges entering the court,
Mr. Phillimore, Q.O , said he had just received a letter
from Mr. Macaulay, who was to have moved this morning
for a new trial in the case of Mr. Marchmont. He regretted
to say that last night Mr. Macaulay was attacked with a
violent sore throat, and that he was prevented by his
medical attendant from leaving his room. He (Dr. Philli-
more) must therefore ask their lordships to allow the'case
to stand over. It was absolutely necessary that the new
trial should be moved for before a full court, as their lord-
ships would perceive from the 18th section of the act.

Sir C. Cresswell—ln this case it must be very unsatis-
factory.that it should be moved for elsewhere.
Lord Campbell—l suppose it can't be helped, but we have
come here at great inconvenience. •
Baron Martin—Can't you go on with it, Dr. Phillimore ?
Lord Campbell—What I Were you with Mr. Macaulay ?
Dr. Phillimore—Yes, my lord.

Lord Campbell—Then I call upon you, Dr. Phillimore,
without the slightest hesitation, to proceed.' I thought
you were an opponent.

Dr. Phillimore--No, my lord. lam on the same side ;
but I have received no instructions.

Lord Campbell—You must go on. The Court will have
no objection to adjourn for a quarter of an hour in order to
enable you to prepare your case. You must be familiar
with all the details.

Dr. Phillimore said he would do his best,. but hefeared
hat he would have to trespass on their lordships' indul-

Bence.

The judges then retired, and, on their return into court,
Dr. Phillituore rose and said he had to move the court for
a new trial in this case, on the ground that the verdict was
contrary to the evidence, that certain evidence had been
admitted which ought to have been rejected, and that the
learned Judge-Ordinary had not properly stated to the jury
as to cruelty. The case occupied eight days in hearing,
and-the learned judge was nearly three hours summing up
the evidence to the jury. The petitioner and Mrs. March-
mont were married in Oct., 1857, at St. George's Cathedral,
and the final separation took place in June, 1858. The
allegations contained in the petition were not so much any
particular and specific acts of cruelty, but rather a series of
continued acts of cruelty ranging over the whole period of
the marriage ; and particular acts of cruelty were charged
as against the husband of attempting to obtain large sums
of money by acts of cruelty, but no stress was laid upon
that point on the other side ; and it was remarkable that
the jury had accompanied their verdict with an intimation
that those particular charges were not proved.
The Judge Ordinary said it was exactly so. He remem-
bered that one or two of tho jury had intimated that such
was their. opinion, but lie judged from the manner of the
foreman when he delivered the verdict that he especially
guarded himself against its being thought that he was of
that opinion.

Lord Campbell—The Court could not be occupied in
hearing anything said by any individual juryman.
Dr. Phillimore said he would proceed with the case, and
having detailed several acts of alleged cruelty, said he sub-
mitted that the learned Judge Ordinary had improperly
laid down the law to the jury both with regard to the par-
ticular acts of cruelty, and in reference to the cases which
had been cited, for instance Holding v. Holding, Waring v.
Waring, Dysart v. Dysart. The learned judge left the
definition of the law to the jury.
The Judge Ordinary said it was not likely that he should
have been guilty of so gross an impropriety as leaving the
definition of the law to the jury.
Lord Campbell—lf the learned counsel intended to rest
his argument upon the misdirection of the judge, he must
first show what the direction of the learned judge was, and
then proceed to show the Court whore it was wrong.

Dr. Phillimore said he would endeavour to do so. One
of the objections of which he had to complain was, that
they endeavoured to produce evidence to show the wife was
of an irritable and ill-tempered disposition, which was not
allowed by the learned judge, although he had himself
told the jury that Mrs. Marchmont was ill-tempered and
peevish. Then, with regard to the particular charge of a
blow having been inflicted, it was proved by a witness
named Tobin, that when the alleged act of cruelty took
place, it was after the occasion of the husband having been
provoked and irritated. The evidence intended to enable
the wife to show that her habitation was unsafe failed,
for it might have arisen from violence, and the wife had no
right, if she had so conducted herself as to cause the provo-
cation, to charge the husband with cruelty. The evidence
showed that Mr. Marchmont was the minister of a Disent-
ing chapel, and his wife was possessed of a fortune of
£50,000. On his marriage it was arranged that he should
leave his chapel, but she was to have the sole control of the
whole financial arrangements of the household; yet a very
short time after their marriage, it was clearly proved that
she absolutely refused to let Mr. Marchmont have even a
few shillings to purchase stationery with, and to say that Mr.
Marchmont had been guilty of acts of cruelty towards his
wife because he felt indignant at her refusal of such a trifling
request was, he thought, saying too much. It was also in
evidence that Mrs. Marchmont was a woman that was in
the habit of stating to her servants that which took place
in the marriage bed. Such a proceeding, he thought,
clearly showed that awoman who would act in such manner
could not be called a delicate woman. It also showed that
she was a person to whom the usual meaning of the word
cruelty could not be applied. The learned counsel then
proceeded to show that the evidence disclosed the fact that
Mrs. Marchmont was addicted to drinking sherry, and that
her conduct at this particular period was of the most
provoking character. The only evidence brought
forward at the trial to prove that a blow had been
struck was only on one occasion, and then it was of so un-
satisfactory a nature that it altogether failed to show that
Mrs. Marchmont was in any actual fear of danger to life or
limb, without which the case could not be sustained.

The Judge Ordinary was of opinion that that was quite
a mistake.

Baron Martin thought a man might beat his wife every
morning with a horsewhip without endangering life or
limb. He thought, however, that such conduct would be
in the minds of all reasonable persons considered cruel. '
Lord Campbell—l think the learned doctor is wholly
wrong in his head.
Dr. Phillimore—That then was all the evidence offered at
the trial to show continued cruelty:
The Judge Ordinary—lt was ' the only evidence to .
showed that a blow had been struck, but it was not the only
evidence to show continued cruelty.
Dr. Phillimore said ho would next proceed to allude to
what took place on the 25th Feb., when the alleged forcing
the wife into a chair, and into the carriage occurred
when they went to the police station. At that particular
period Mrs. Marchmont had left her home and was residing
with a friend named Walmsley. It was alleged that she
was dragged from the house along the garden, notwith-
standing her screams, and was forced into a cab and held
down to the seat. On tnis occasion Mrs. Walmsley spoke
to a blow having been given.
The Judge Ordinary said the evidence of the cabman
proved that Mrs. Marchmont was roughly put into the cab,
and the husband had admitted that he had placed hiS arm
round her waist to assist her into the cab, and when he was
askel why he did so,. he did not think any person could
forgot the answer given. He said he did it because ho was
so fond of her. (Loud laughter.)
Dr. Phillimore said, whilst in the cab Mrs. .Marchmont
stated that her husband called her filthy names, and when she
got to the station-house she refused to make any charge
against Mr. Marchmont, which he thought would not have
been the case if any actual cruelty had been committed.
The learned doctor then adverted to the occasion when Mrs.
Marchmont left her home on the Sth of March, and her
return on the 13th, and to seven following occasions when
she left her home.

The Judge Ordinary said it must be borne in mind that
on each of those occasions there had been discussions about
money matters, and the making of her will.
Dr. Phillimore said that was so, but he contended that
Mr,s. Marehmont had condoned the cruelty by voluntarily
returning'to her home after she had so frequently left it,
and such being the case he humbly submitted that Mr.
Marehmont was entitled to a new trial.

,The Judge Ordinary said the evidence brought forward
in this case was of a very remarkable character. It ap-
peared that the. endeavour of both parties had been to bring
forward every unkind word or thing that had passed be-
tween them for the period of eight months, and they had
consumed eight days in doing so. He thought there had
been faults on both sides: Mrs. Marchmont, no doubt, was
a lady addicted to taking more sherry than was consistent
with calmness; yet, looking at the whole of the case, he
saw no reason to be dissatisfied with the verdict of the
jury.

Lord Campbell said he was of opinion that no new rule
ought to be granted in this case, and the verdict ought not
be disturbed. The evidence had been of a very conflicting
character, and the jury preferred believing Mrs. March-
mont. He was not prepared to say they were wrong, or
that they had come to a wrong decision. Although the
conduct of the wife had been low and vulgar, that of her
husband had been base, sordid and disgraceful, and the

jury were perfectly justified in not paying the slightest at-
tention to his evidence. It was a gratification to find
that the whole of the schemes of a man who had been

actuated by such discreditable motives had been effectually
disappointed..
Baron Martin thought the verdict was quite correct, and
that the application ought to be refused.
Application for a new trial refused accordingly.
Lord Campbell addreSsing Sergeant Pippott (Mrs.
Marchmont's counsel)—Do you, brother Piggott, move for
a decree of divorce. ? We are ready to pronounce one:
Sergeant Piggutt—l eau do SQ, my lord, if there is no
opposition on the part of 'my learned friend.

Dr. Phillimore—l cannot oppose at present as I have no
instructions.
Lord Campbell—Then the motion had better be post-
poned for a short time.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,-(THIS DAY.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET

A LOVE AFFAlR.—Edward Valentine Winey, a respect-
able-looking young man, was charged with knocking at
the door of Mr. Richard Evans, of Princes-court, Newport-
market, without a lawful excuse.

The complainant said that, about one on Sunday morn-
ing, he heard a knock at his street door, and, on opening
it, there was no one there ; but a few minutes afterwards,
hearing a tapping at the shutters, he again went out, and
discovered the accused and gave him into custody.
Mr. Beadon said there must be some reason for his going
to his house.

The complainant said the accused told him he had kept
company with his daughter for three years. He under-
stood from his daughter that he followed her about where-
ever she went, and she did not wish to have anything to do
with him. She had got another engagement. His daugh
ter was in court.

The daughter, a rather good-looking girl, said she did
not wish to have anything to do with him.
The accused said he had known the lady three years, and
went out on Saturday night with her for a walk, as usual,
and he called to see her acrain.
The daughter admitted she met the accused on Saturday
night, and after a good deal of persuasion took three penny-
worth of brandy with him. ' •
The accused, who did not seem to understand the tide
affairs were taking, said the young lady had called to see
him twice the previous week.

Mr. Beadonsed he should order the accused to enter
into his own recognisances to keep the peace, and he would
advise the young lady, if she wanted to be off with an old
love, not to drink with him.