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

LATV LYTELLIGENCE.-(TIIIS DAY.)

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Right Hon. Sir J. P. IVilde 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 had 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,
111 r. Moseley said that he was a surgeon at

latherton, and was the guardian of Mrs. Prineeps,

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.
He did not think he did anything.
Cross-examined—Mrs. Piinceps 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 he replied that his NNife 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 bad a little bit of a farm. lie
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 186.1 to
1865 with Mrs. Princeps. She knew Mr. Marshall
Pickard. no 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. Sliehld seen him again, but not
with Mr. Pickard. She had 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

ke to have him." She said that several times.

There was a groom named Walterson at Mr. Prin-
ceps'. In the summer of 18G5 she used to be con-
stantly going round to thestables where he was. She
never spoke about him to witness. He had bean hav-
ing his supper 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.
Mr. 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. Princeps 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. Princeps 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 had seen him take hold
of her hand and put his hand across her
bosom. lie had said " You must not
split as I do not know what 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 her 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 had had a cup of tea with the co-respondent.
lie had said to witness, " lie loved her, and must
have her," meaning Mrs. Priuceps. 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.
After some additional evidence had been adduced,
the jury returned a verdict to the effect that the
respondent had committed adultery with Waterson
and not with Pickard, but the Court would not
make any order as to costs on the ground that the
conduct of Mr. Pickard was such as to justify the
suspicious of the husband.