The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-15 00:00:00

.SPORTING OPINIONS.

LINCOLN HANDICAP.
(I1•oin Bell's Life)

It is, in fact, hard to feel at all certain about
even Purveyor getting a " place ;" and should King
Charming, The Czar, and Skirmish all be ripe and
ready on the day, he may be beaten out of the
coveted berth. Wild Moor is another doubtful cus-
tomer he has to fear, though in summing up we can-
not help inclining towards the three old ones named,
of whom the Czar,would have the preference were he
landed here safe and sound, failing which we should
fall back upon King Charming.

(From the Sporting Gazette.)

The horses that appear to me to be best in are
Historian, King Charming, Indigestion, Wild Moor,
Midwife, Skirmish, Czar, Grey Stocking, Pur-
veyor, Relivirus, Caprera, and Our Mary Ann ;
and those entiiled to the greatest consideration from
their p;.'rforinancs and the :a inner two of them
have been backed are King Charming, Grey Stock-
ing, and Purveyor, my p articular choice being Gnat
STOCKING ; an 1 if the trio are beaten, I expect it
will be Cz•tr or Oar vary Ann, who are, perhaps,
the most favourably weighted of all the horses
engaged.

(From the Siviri Life,.)
I shall c3mmit myself to Czar, ludige.stion, Grey
Stocking, and Cauthleen to defeat the field, and of
these I trust to Indigestion and Czar, believing
that the stable demonstration in favour of
Wild Moor should be immediately followed, as the
greatest danger is to be apprehended from that
quarter, and Jennings with Cauthleen.

(From the Sportsman.)

On Tuesday I propose to discuss seriatim the
capabilities and chances of the varioas candidates
that are likely to take part in the contest, and shall
then give my final selection for this event, but in
the meanwhile I may state that at present I enter-
tain a very high opinion of the claims of Purveyor.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(TIIIS DAY.)

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before the Right Hon. Sir J. P. Wilde and a
Common Jury.)
PRINCEPS V. PRINCEPS PICKARD.

This was a suit instituted for a divorce on the
ground of adultery. The defence was that the
husband bad committed adultery and connived.

Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey appeared
for the petitioner; Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. S.
Hill for the respondent; and Dr. Spinks,
Q.C.,
and Mr. Inderwick for the co-respondent.
Mr. Coleridge having opened the case,
Mr. Moseley said that he was a surgeon at
Hatherton, and was the guardian of Mrs. Princeps.
She was married in November, 1855. He gave
her away. She went to live with her husband at
Appleby. He did not know what the petitioner did.
lie did not think he did anything.
Cross-examined—Mrs. Princeps had £B,OOO, of
which £6,000 was given to the petitioner on his
wedding day. He was very frequently at races ; that
was his principal business. He used to be out often.
He had always seen him kind to his wife and very
attentive. He had spoken to petitioner about being
out so much, and be replied that his 'ife knew
what she had to expect, and that he was not out
more than before his marriage. He was told of the
wife leaving the house immediately afterwards. He
went to condole with him. He might have told a
Mr. Powes that he expected the respondent would
leave him. He had heard rumours about her, and
knew the persons she associated with.
By the Court—lie had a little bit of a farm. He
used to be for a week at the racing. He might stay
at home a week. He would think it a nuisance if
he had to stay at home a fortnight. He was at
home about half his time.

Louisa Smith said that she lived from 1864 to
1865 with Mrs. Princeps. She knew Mr. Marshall
Pickard. He was a gentleman farmer. He used
to go walking out with Mrs. Princeps and the chil-
dren. On one occasion they met Mr. Pickard
and talked to him. She had seen him again, but not
with Mr. Pickard. She hail not seen him
at the house. One night she said that
she was gone to Mrs. Cooper's, and she really went
to Mr. Pickard's. She went to fetch her, and saw
her come out of Pickard's, and he was standing at the
door. She said what a nice man he was, and she
was very fond of him. She also said " She should
like to have him." She said that several times.
There was a groom named Walterson at Mr. Prin-
eeps'. In the summer of 1865 she used to be coa-
stantly going round to thestables where he was. She
never spoke about him to witness. He had besu hav-
ing hissupper one evening and he took Mrs. Princeps'
supper into the dining room. He remained half an
hour. When Mrs. Princeps came out her hair was
much disordered. She did this on two or three
occasions when Mr. Princeps was away. She had
seen Mrs. Princeps in the swing and Walterson
swinging her. She had seen her come from the
stables. Her hair was much disordered, and she
looked very much ashamed. She received a note
on one occasion, and went immediately afterwards
to the stable.

Cross-examined--This was in the summer of
1865. She was not in the nursery when the note
was torn up. She saw it afterwards. She made
no secret of going to the stable. Sometimes there
was one horse and someiimes two. Her hair was
always disordered.

Sir J. P. Wild—But you said just now that it
Was only sometimes.

Witness said that she did not always see her.
➢lr. Pickard's house was close and quite public. Mr.
Princeps did not speak to him. Mrs. Prickard had
children. Mrs. Princeps had never spoken to her
of the neglect of her husband. Witness would not
swear that her mistress did not say that she should
like Mr. Pickard as a husband. She knew nothing
of Mr. Pickard except that he was a gentleman
in the neighbourhood.

By the Court—Walterson used to drive her out
in a dogcart. Mr. Priuceps never asked her about
it. She told Mr. Shee, the attorney, about it.
Fanny Smith said that she went to live with the
petitioner in October, 1865. She was the only
female servant in the house, and she remained till
Mrs. Princeps left. She told her that she had got
into a scrape, and she must get out of it. She
asked her if she thought Mr. Princeps knew of it.
While Mr. Prineeps was away she packed up her
clothes and went away. She knew Mr. Pickard,
and she had seen him with her mistress in the
field. They met several times in the week. She
has heard Pickard tell Mrs. Princeps that he
loved her. She hal seen him take hold
of her hand and put his hand across her
bosom. He had said " You must not
split as I do not know wkat will be the conse-
quences." Witness had also seen him kiss her ;
this was three weeks before she went away. She
had sent messages to Pickard by witness to come
and see her, and he had replied, " Dear girl, I love
her; tell her to come this afternoon." She did go
down. In April and May she had gone five times
a week to Mr. Pickard's house. Mrs: Princeps
said that Mr. Pickard had taken liberties with
her. She had stayed as late as half-past ten
o'clock at Mr. Pickard's. Witness had been
spoken to her mistress about Pickard, and she had
asked ber whether she had committed adultery with
him, and she said " almost." She used to go to
Miss Bowley, a dressmaker; and her mistress said
she bad had a cup of tea with the co-respondent.
He had said to witness, " lie loved her, and must
have her," meaning Mrs. Princeps. She had known
Walterson come to the house, and once he was
locked in a room with the respondent. She saw
her come out, and she was confused, and her hair
in disorder.

The case wal proceeding when we ✓rent to press.

PROPOSED WIDENING OF LIIDGATE-lIILL.—At
the meeting of the Metropolitan Board of Works yesterday
a report from the works committee recommending that the
board do contribute one-half of the cost of an improvement
proposed at the western end of Ludgate-hill, such contri-
bution not to exceed £ll,7s6—the improvement costing
£23,512 —was brought up by Mr. Freeman. Mr. Newton
opposed the recommendation. The motion Was eventually
carried.