The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELL.M!ENCE—(IIus Day).

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(B-fore Sir C. Cresswell and a Common .Tury.)
POLLACK V. POLLACK-DEANE AND MACNAMARA.
In this case the husband, who is a sugar-refiner, and
keeps one ofthe largest establishments in Prussia at Konigs-
berg, petitioned the Court for dissolution of marriage with
his wife on the ground of her adultery with the co-re-
spondents.

Macnamara denied the adultery and the marriage, and
he also pleaded condonation and collusion ; and Deane de-
nied the adultery, and pleaded connivance and collusive
prosecution of the suit.

The respondent did not appear, and Macnamara was not
represented by counsel.

Dr. Swabey was counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.
Merryweather and Mr. O'Dowd appeared for the co-re-
spondent Deane.

Dr. Swabey stated the case. This was a suit instituted
by Mr. Solomon Pollack under rather peculiar circum-
stances. The marriage took place at the parish church,
Marylebone, in 1852, and they cohabited chiefly at Konigs-
berg, but occasionally in England, at the commencement
of 1859. In that year the petitioner became acquainted
with certain circumstances, which satisfied him that his
wife had committed adultery with both of the co-respon-
dents, and he immediately took steps to obtain a divorce.
The offences were stated to have taken place at the house
where Mr. and Mrs. Pollack boarded in 1858, at the Great
-Western Hotel, Paddington, and at Kew. It further
stated that there were two children, the issue of the mar-
riage.

Richard Laurance, a medical man, s Lid that he was ac-
quainted with Mr. and Mrs. Pollack, and he knew the latter,
whose maiden name was Worsley, previous to the marriage.
He was aware that they lived at Holloway as well as Char-
loge-street, Fitzroy-square, between 1858 and 1859. In
cross-examination he said that the petitioner had a son
eighteen years old by a former wife, from whom he had
been divorced, as he understood, at his own instance.
The evidence of a female named Emilie Ruditski, which
bad been taken by commission at Konigsberg, was then
/cad. She said that she was in Mr. Pollack's service as
nursery-maid, and was with them in Charlotte-street,
Pitzroy-square. Mr. William Macnamara, the co-respon-
dent, oscupied a bedroom with his brother on the same floor
as Mr. Pollack's apartments. Had never seen any improper
familiarity between them. She saw Mrs. Pollack go into his
bedroom sometimes with Mr. Pollock, and sometimes by
herself. The latter circumstance did not excite any suspi-
cion in her mind. Mrs. Pollack admitted to her that she
had sexual intercourse with Mr. Macnamara, who promised
to
marry her if she obtained a divorce. She had reason
to believe that they slept together one night, and Mrs. Pol-
lack admitted the fact.
Some other evidence was called, which was not very n:a-
terial, and this closed the petitioner's case, which was
abandoned, as far as Deane, the second co-respondent, was
concerned.
The jury found that the respondent had committed
adultery, but there was no evidence to criminate the co-
respondent.

Mr. MerTyweather' then applied for costs on the part of
Mr. Dean.
The learned judge said that he would consider the whole
subject before deciding this point.
The jury found a verdict to the effect that adultery had
Aot been proved, and the Court dismissed the petition.

THE CASE OF THE REV. ME. HATCH. The
question of the decision of the Lord Chief Baron relative
relat
te the certificate entitling the plaintiff to the fun costs o$
action, according to the scale of the superior courts, in the
Lord
of '4 Hatch v. Lewis," still remains in abeyance, the 1
kdord Chief Baron not having delivered his judgment on
the question. Mr. Hatch is, we understand, now a pri_
Boner in the Queen's prison, he hating been arrested at the
euit of a judgment creditor. He had gone down to 'West-
kinster Hall to see his counsel, Mr. Montagu Chambers,
°,.,11 new
the occasion of his motion before the court for a neN
t
fral; it appears for such a purpose he would not be pnv!-
eed from arrest, and accordingly as he left the court in
,i4s7ll°!ed security he was suddenly arrested, and conveyed to
hitecross-street Prison, from whence he has been re-
tre-
mooed by habeas to the Queen's Prison until such time as
" 4444m:tent eau be effected,