The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
Lord LANGDALE heard motions to-day.
BEYON V. WATERHOUSE.

Mr. PEMBERTON, applied on behalf of the plaintiffs in this
cause, to have book accounts and other documents produced by
the defendants, who were agents of a certain plantation estate
in the West Indies, in which the plaintiffs had an interest.
Mr. TURNER opposed the application, on the ground that
great inconvenience would result to the defendants, who
resided in Liverpool, and were in extensive business
as agents for other parties, from their being obliged to
produce their books in London, to be detained there till the
accounts in question were examined. The defendant was will-
ing to fut nish copies of all the parts of their hooks that related
to the matters in question, and would consent that those copies
be read against them in the same manner as the original ac-
counts, with which the copies could be compared.
Lord LANGDALE thought the proposition of the defendant
very reasonable.

Sir. PEMBERTON said that it would greatly inconvenience
the :plaintiffs Ito send down a commission to Liverpool for the
purpose of making copies of the accounts.
Lord LANGDALE said inconvenience must arise in either
case to both parties. At all events the plaintiffs were entitled
to have the accounts produced. Such was the rule of the
Court, and an order to that effect should be made.
It was ultimately agreed that the books should be examined
at Liverpool.

VICE CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.)
ROSE V. CLARKE.
The Court was engaged the entire day with the arguments
in this part-heard cause, which came on for further directions.
It was totally devoid of interest.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIG RAM. )
BOWER. V. COOPER.
The bill was filed in this cause by the plaintiff, as purchaser of
a small pi operty near Southampton, sgainst the defendant, who
was the vendor, and who had refused to perform the specifiic
contract entered into at the sale.
The case was entered into at considerable length, but its de-
tails were quite uninteresting.

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

RICIIARDS V. DYKE AND ANOTHER.
In this case the point to be decided was, whether in cases of
non-payment of Church-rates, under the sum of 10/.,
the validity of which was not disputed, the Ecclesi-
astical Court possessed co-ordinate jurisdiction with
the Magistrates ; whether, in fact, it was competent
to Churchwardens to sue persons in the Ecclesiastical Court
for non-payment of a Church• rate under 101., without summon-
ing them before a Ikhgistrate, and ascertaining whether it
was a mere refusal of payment, or whether the validity of the
rate w as disputed.

'Tice arguinents were wholly of a technical nature, and turned
upon the comtruction to be given in the wording of one of the
sections 54th of Gco. 3.

The COURT took time to consider the point.
DUNN V. COOMBE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, whose name has
been so frequently before the public as the suitor of Miss
Burdett. Coutts, against the defendant, the Magistrate of
Hatton Garden, for false imprisonment The defendant had
committed the plaintiff to prison under certain articles of the
peace, which this Court had subsequently determined to be bad.
The case was tried before Mr. Baron Alderson, at Hertford,
and the Jury had given him a farthing damages.
The plaintiff in person now moved for a new trial, unless de-
fendant would pay 35/., because he had proved special damages
to that amount, and that would have carried costs. It appeared
that the Learned JUdge had refused to certify.
Lord DEN:ALAN said the Court would consult the Learned
Judge who had tried the case, and give judgment in a few days.

cross-examination of Mr. Wingate, that it accidentally came
out that Mrs. Dillon had been in ti habit of absenting herself
from home, how often, under what circumstances, and what
means Mr. Dillon took to check such a habit, and bound he
was to exercise all the control of a husband, well knowing that
he had not married her under ordinary circumstances—with re-
spect to all these facts, the Court was left wholly in the dark.
Such evidence, assuming the facts to be true, on the part of
Dr. Dillon, might have been given, and there could be no
doubt that, being thus purposely kept in the dark, the Court
was bolted to take especial care, with respect to the further
facts of the case, that it walked in the light. To proceed to
the charge of adultery, it was not proved by any evidence that
on the 29th of December, le4o, Mrs. Dillon met any man
whatever at Gravesend ; but it was admitted that in the after-
noon of that day, she was in the neighbourhood of Gadshill,
where, it was alleged, she went and committed the adul-
tery. The fact was not unimportant in its bearing. if
the three witnesses were not grossly perjured. They
proved that some man and woman did sleep at their house
on the night of the 29th December, which, if true, would
bring the question merely to one of identity. With respect
to the particular day, it was of course very important, and
under the circumstances, he should have but a slight reliance on
the accuracy of the memory of a witness, unless, from some pecu-
liar facts, they were enabled naturally and probably to fix them
on the memory. It certainly appeared that the facts spoken to
by one witness of a ball that was to take place on the 31st day
of December, the last day of the year, was a fact reasonably
tending to enable the witness to fix the time. Nor was
the accuracy of Mrs. Wilson affected by the state-
ment of the maid, that the parties slept in the house
two nights before Christmas day, and not two nights
before New Year's day. It was but a slight error,
and not such a discrepancy as would lead the Court to doubt
the accuracy with which the witness had fixed the day, or the
probability of the fact making due impression on her • mind.
With regard to the identity of the persons, the power of a
witness to speak to the identity of the parties who slept in
the house on the 29th of December, would much depend on
the opportunities they had had of seeing them, and having
their attention called to them. Mr. Wilson, who attended
the parties at tea, and again in the morning at breakfast, had
such opportunities as might enable him to speak to the
identity of the parties with reasonable certainty. He said
reasonable certainty, because, in all common cases, he was
of opinion that an innkeeper was not the best witness as to
the guests whom he sees but once. This was obvious on
the slightest consideration, because from the habit of seeing a
very considerable number of strangers, unless some particular
fact called his attention to the personal conduct
of any individual, he was not likely to retain
any very fixed recollection of their persons. But
upon the present occasion, there was, as stated by
the witnesses, the additional and particular fact of the
lady having lost one eye, or that it was visibly affected;
and also the particular fact, that the person who accom-
panied her again came to the inn in May afterwards, and
spoke of bringing the lady there again. The maid ser-
vant, Frances Gough, had still more ample opportunity,
according to her own account, of ascertaining the identity.
She not only waited on the parties, but assisted the lady to
dress and undress ; and she further stated, that upon see-
ing her in the steam-vessel as she was leaving, she recognised
her. It was unnecessary to travel through the evidence as to
the mere fact of adultery, because, unless this witness was
grossly perjured; it was clear they slept together at the
ton at Gadshill. In the libel it had been stated
that the person who slept there told the chambermaid
while she was assisting to undress her that she had a mother
living, whom she was going to see; that was true as stated in
the libel, but the evidence of the servant went further, for she
says that she not only stated that she had a mother living, and
was going to visit her, but that she had not seen her for eight
or nine years. Now, though the adultery here charged was
limited to one occasion only, and although there was no circum-
stance either preceding or succeeding it to throw any lightispon
the case, yet he felt himself bound to say that the onus of
proof which was thrown upon the accuser was prima facie
tome out by the evidence. But before the Court arrived at
the conclusion, that the adultery was established, not only must
the evidence be duly weighed, but many other important and
peculiar circumstances must receive grave consideration. All
this must be done before the Court could arrive at the deter-
mination that the facts alleged were proved, and that Dr. Dillon
was entitled to the divorce he prayed. The evidence with re-
gard to the alibi consists of Mrs. Drury, the mother of
Mrs. Dillon, who at the time resided at Gravesend, Janet
Rumball, Emily Dix, and Elizabeth Lloyd. They were exp.•
mined to prove that Mrs. Dillost was at Gravesend, and slept.
there on the night in question, and therefore that she coull not
be at the Sir John Falstaff. Now these witnesses were in that
situation whirls induced the Court to watch their evidence with
great diligence. With respect to Mrs. Drury she was the
mother of the patty accused, but it was not on that account
alone that the Court had watched her evidence with great -1.
gence, or that it would say that she ought not to be en—
credit, for nothing could be more improper than to hold that a
person standing in the situation of mother to the accused
could not be examined. It came therefore to this, that
when they came to examine a witness connected with
the parties as to facts, they were to consider whether
that witness was cnt:tled to credit or not. Now,
it' Mrs. Drury, Janet Rumball, and Emily D.x spoke the
truth, it was manifestly impossible that Mrs. Dillon conld
have been at the Sir John Falstaff at the time stated. Eli-
zabeth Lloyd did nut establish the fact with the same certainty,
for she spoke of Mrs. Dillon bring at her mother's on Tuesday
evening at six o'clock, so that she might have gone to the Sir
John Eiletaff. But the evidence of Elizabeth Lloyd was of
considerable importance, for it tended strongly to corroborate
the evidence of Mrs. Drury, Janet Rumball, and Emily Dix of
her having been at the house at Gravesend. With such means,
looking at the contradictory nature of the evidence, the credit
of the witnesses was most important. The credit of these four
witnesses, the manner in which they gave their evidence, and
the probability of the reasons which induced them to
fix so positively on Tuesday night, were circumstances
which the Court must look to in pronouncing its judgment.
The fact that Mrs. Dillon did go to Gravesend with the con-
sent of her husband on the '29th of December, took away all
improbability of her going to her mother, and put in doubt, at
least, the circumstance of her being at the Sir John Fals:aff;
and it had this additional bearing, it was in unison with the
evidence of Mrs. Drury, when she stated that she had written
to, and expected her daughter. The Court. upon a careful ex-
amination and consideration of Mrs. Drury's evidence, con-
sidered that it was not marked with such improbability, or w.s
so void ct truth, as to give it no weight. Mrs. Drury's evi-
dence was confirmed by that of Janet Rumball, Elizabeth
Lloyd, and Emily Dix. The Learned Judge did not think it
necessary to follow minutely all the circumstances stated;
they appeared probable, and were spoken to by all the wit-
nesses, as well as Mrs. Drury herself. Elizabeth Lloyd
was, as far as it appeared to the Learned Judge, as credible a
witness as any in the cause. She did not attempt to go beyond
the facts in her own mind, she simply gave the fact that she
had been engaged to go that evening to sleep at Mrs. Drury's,
for the purpose of making a dress, and she did not attempt
to carry clown the presence of Mrs. Dillon at the house of Mrs.
Drury, a moment lunrrer than six o'clock. If she had been
brought forward to establish the fact of an alibi satisfactorily,
it was to have been expected that she would have gone
further. The question was, was she a credible witness,
and were the reasons she gave as impressing the cir-
cumstances on her mind consistent. Now with respect
to that, the Learned Judge would observe first,
that Thursday was New Year's Day, was a fact admitted on
both sides. Now what were the circumstances that occurred
to her, not simply that she was disappointed at not sleeping
at the house, but that she had, at six o'clock at night, on the
29t1r of December, to go back to Northfleet, having no other
place to sleep at. That was a circumstance calculated to make
an impression cn the mind of any witness, and induced the
Learned Judge to think tier evidence entitled to credit. With
respect to the evidence of Emily Dix, there was nothing in it
that would induce the Learned Judge to say that she was a less
credible witness than t rances Gough, the servant at the Sir John
Falstaff; they were both in the same situation of life, and equally
entitled to credit. Her reasons for fixing the day might not
be so cogent as those operating on the mind of Mr. and Mrs.
Wilson, but still there was no appearance of fiction in her
evidence. To her the circumstance of being permitted
to have a holiday was likely to fix the time on her memory.
Her statement, too, of her interview with Mrs. Dillon on the
10th of May, was consistent in itself and with the evidence of
Janet Rumball ; and it was scarcely possible—he was now
alluding to what took place on the 10th of May, when Dr.
Dillon went down for the purpose_ of seeing this girl ;
she had quitted the service when Janet Rumba]] was
closely examined as to what took place on that occasion, and
so also was Emily Dix—they had to give detailed evidence as
to what occurred, and they were both consistent in that evi-
dence, and it was impossible that it should have been concocted
by two such witnesses ; they could never have met a cross-
examination, such as had been applied to them, by any previous
concert. Now, he was hound to say that there was one fact
deposed to by Emily Dix—he was now considering her
credit—of a very startling description he referred to her evi-
dence on the 9th article, and she on the 9th article stated,
agreeably to her belief, that subsequently to the 10th
of May Dr. Dillon did come to her; did question her as to the
day Mrs. Dillon came to her mother's, and did endeavour to
persuade her to say that it was on the Wednesday. She stated
that at the time of the first interview she mentioned it to her
mistress, and that the person returned a second time. The
reference to her mistress certainly tended to show that some
one at least so visited her ; but he had thought it his duty to
look at the answers. Dr. Dillon there positively denied that
he ever had any interview with this witness at all. Now upon
her sole testimony as against Dr. Dillon, in this particular
opposed by his answers, he thought he should not be
justified in imputing to Dr. Dillon the attempt to induce
this witness to swear falsely; but though he did not impute
to Dr. Dillon the offence of endeavouring to pervert the evi-
dence to be brought before that Court, yet on the other hand
he should be wholly unjustified in imputing to this witness that
she had wilfully told an untruth. The principle which he had
acted upon in considering this evidence was analogous to that
which was acted upon in a Court of Equity where a single
witness deposed to a fact, which fact was distinctly denied in
the answer of the other party ; and though he did mot say that
those principles could always be carried out in those Courts,
and indeed they ought not, yet he thought, in a case of this
great difficulty, it was justifiable to resort to that principle, and
he thought there might be equal justice between the parties
when on the one hand he disclaimed imputing to Dr. Dillon
any culpability with regard to the witnesses, and on the other
did not fix upon Emily Dix the charge of having told a wilful
falsehood. Now this was the evidence of those seven witnesses.
He feared that, in looking at other parts of the case, it would
be indispensably requisite to advert to other parts
of their testimony which would have a bearing also
on the question of credit and identity. But he had now
considered the evidence of these seven witnesses, as to the
great point in dispute ; viz., as to where Mrs. Dillon slept on
the night of the 29th of December ; and he was compelled to
say that on whichever side the truth might be, on the examina-
tion of the evidence of these witnesses, so far at least as he had
hitherto gone, he was placed in this painful predicament: he did
not find sufficient to enable him to say that either party
had been guilty of wilful perjury ; if mistakes there
were by either, it was certainly as difficult to be
accounted for. In such a case it behoved the Court to proceed
with great caution ; and, therefore, he should now address him.

led. to

self to the other points arising in this case. There were two
points to which tho evidence in great measure equally applied,
and he should deal with them together ; the conduct of Dr.
Dillon before and after the discovery of the alleged adultery,
what. took place us regarded the witnesses, as regarded his wife,
and with regard to the unknown adulterer.
_The evidence

as to the Manner in which the adultery first came to
the knowledge of Dr. Dillon. was given by Mrs. Wilson on the
7th and Bth interrogatory, and the truth of that statement could
not be denied without impugning the veracity of one of the
principal witnesses examined on behalf of Dr. Dillon: Ile
won'

not advert to the other alternative, or, to the supposi-
in that Dr. Dillon had wilfully mis-stated the truth. Now
what were the facts established by Mrs.Wilsen's evidence on the
;th interrogatory. Having first said that Dr. Dillon had called
upon and questioned her, she said, " My husbAnd was the only
person present on that occasion. Dr. Dillon stated that he had
been repeatedly written to about his wife to watch her move-
ments; that he paid no attention to the letters he received
about her, till he received one from a friend of the gentleman
who had been with her at our house, and who had quarrelled
with the said gentleman, stating that his wife and the said gentle-
man had slept at our house on the said 29th day of December."
Now the Bth interrogatory went on further to say, that she did
not know who the man was. that Dr. Dillon said he did not
know the man himself, but that he had been told that he was
the son of a solicitor, living at No. 3, scra,.et)here, at a place
.which Dr. Dillon mentioned in Lincoln's Inn. Now what did

Dr. Dillon do upon this? That which was not prudent in any
case, and still less in one like this. lie undertook the investi-
gation in person, and going down to the inn there saw the two
principal witnesses. This happened some' days before the 10th
of May; ho went down twice, between the beginning of May
and the 10th of May. Mrs. Vs ilson stated that on Mr. Wilson
observing that the lady had something the matter with one of
her eyes, Dr. Dillon said, " It is my wife," and was much af-
fected. • Pursuant to an arrangement then made, Mr.
Wilson proceeded to town on the 10th of May, and met
Dr. and Mrs. Dillon at
,the Polytechnic. The conver-
sation which took place was somewhat singular. The
previous facts which he had mentioned must be borne
in mind. It was for the purpose of identifying this lady that
Mr. Wilson so entered the Polytechnic ; and he said, having
observed Dr. Dillon sit down with his wife in a less frequented
part of the morn, and having immediately recognised her, he
went up and said, " Good morning, Ma'am ; I hope you are better.
Mrs. Wilson and myself thought we should have had the plea-
sure of seeing you at Gadshill again before this. Your good
gentleman was at our house a short time since, and said he should
bring you down again, as he thought it benefited your health."
Now, it did appear to him, that was a rather singular mode of
addressing her, and it produced at least one fact, that this
gentleman—this unknown gentleman—who, as they found from
the other parts of the evidence, had been at the house subse-
quently, and as he thought pretty clear, many times before, though
still unknown, that he had used, according tothe statement of this
witness, an expression denoting his intention to revisit him.
But what said Dr. Dillon to that? Dr. Dillon and his wife
then stood up, and he questioned about what he had said to her,
addressing her by her Christian name, which he did not now
remember, " My dear," says he, " what does this mean ?
Your good gentleman—what does this mean ?" Why Dr.
Dillon knew all this; he was perfectly cognisant of it ; he had
received the letter; he had seen Mr. and Mrs. Wilson. He could
not but say that what followed appeared like an arrangement
of identity. " What does this mean—your good gen-
tleman?" Addressing me he said, " I are this
lady's good gentleman." Surely Mr. Wilson knew that before;
it was a very gratuitous piece of information. " I am her
husband—was it.l who was with her at your house?" Cer-
tainly that was a fact in his own knowledge. " I told him no,
and he proceeded to question me further as to his wife, and as
he was so doing Mrs. Dillon squeezed my arm. I con-
tinued, however. He appeared very much cut up, and
putting his hand to his forehead he turned round."
Why if he had believed the witnesses before, certainly
it was somewhat singular that he should conduct him-
self in the manner stated. Now, the reason why he ad-
verted to this was, because of the predicament in which the
Court was placed, where an individual undertook to conduct
his own case. What it had a right to expect was, that some
person, whose integrity and impartiality could be re-
lied on, should have been employed in sifting these
witnesses ; on this occasion, there was only the
party himself. He must not, however, though very
much struck by the detail of the conversation, take a one-
sided view of this evidence. This was distinctly sworn by
Mr. Wilson, of whom he had already said' that he knew no
reason why he shoal(' not be entitled to credit ; and it was a
fact of the greatest importance in this case, that Mrs. Dillon,
by urging him to silence, in effect admitted her identity; because
it was impossible, prima facie, that if she was utterly ignorant
of the whole of this transaction, but that she should have
utterly disregarded all assertions to the contrary made by Mr.
Wilson; and certainly she would not have endeavoured to
silence him in the manner which had been deposed to by Mr.
Wilson himself. It was a very strung circumstance, but it was
deposed to by a single witness alone, and corroborated by no
other. Now what occurred then? On this same 10th day of
May, the day of this very interview, Mr. Wilson came to Doc-
tors' Commons, and was examined by the clerk of the Proctor.
What occurred there? Mr. Wilson comes to Doctors'-com-
mons, and is examined by the clerk of the proctor. If all this
were done by previous arrangement it was most inconsistent
with all probability, and difficult to account for the surprise ex •
pressed by Dr. Dillon at the interview ; he must have made
up his mind, and have spoken with the proctor. On the 10th
of May Dr. Dillon takes his wife home to her mother's at
Gravesend; on the 11th of May Dr. Dillon is again joined by
Mrs. Dillon, after her return from Gravesend, and the citation
is served in the presence of Mrs. Wilson and Dr. Dillon, a fact
almost ur precedented in the history of that Court, and as soon as
it is served Mrs. Dillon walks away with Dr. Dillon. Other facts
show that there is nothing extraordinary in this evidence. After
the suit was commenced, it was proved that Dr. Dillon, while
the ease was going on, had two interviews with his wife, one
on the 3Qtli of May, the other on the 4th of Jfily. They took
place in the evening, and lasted no inconsiderable time; fOr
taking the fair medium between the witnesses, it appeared that
they lasted three or four hours, arid did not terminate till twelve
at night. It appeared that they walked away arm in arm, and
the witness Page says they shook hands at parting. The con-
versation spoken of by fills. Drury he should have paid more
attention to, had it been deposed to by more witnesses than
one ; as it stood, he did not feel safe in relying
on the evidence of a single witness in this case,
in anything of this eescription. He should now consider what
bearing this evidence hart on the fact of adultery. This was no
ordinary case, and in many respects the observations that ap-
plied to c.mtnori cases did not apply to this one. His judgment
was not founded on any isolated part of the case, but on all the
circumstances combined. It was no ordinary case, because, as,
he had already observed, in a case where the husband sought to
be divorced on account of adultery from the wife whom he had
first seduced; he must expect to have his whole conduct visited
with a much more rigid senutiny and investigation than
the conduct of a husband in ordinary cases. In such
• circumstances' the husband alas bound to exercise par-
ticular vigilance; he had paved the lead to her first fall,
' and he ought to take care that he did not smooth the
path to her second. He had furnished no evidence as to their
criminal cohabitation ; he slid not place much reliance on the
evidence of the two servants, who deposed that he had often
expse sued a wish to get rid of his wife. But it was fair to rely
on his own witness, who proved that he did not live on happy
terms with his wife, nor were circumstances-wanting during
their union calculated to excite his vigilance. In the early
part of 1840,-Dr: Dillon declared that they could not live toge-
ther much longer, from the violence of Mrs. Dillon and her
absenting herself from home. This fact considered, with
reference to their connexion before marriage, and the
disparity of years ought to have excited his attention
and have led him to take steps for the preservation of her
honour, but nothing whatever appears to have been done.
Nothing having been done, he did not think he was expressing
himselt too strongly when he said that the absence of such due
precautions was a criminal neglect, and which, from the cir-
cumstances occurring before marriage, never ought to have been
lost sight of by him. The absence of all precautionary measures
might not alone determine the judgment of the Court, yet, it
would be an important ingredient combined with other eircum-
stances. 'He had himself stated that he had often been written
to respecting the conduct of his wife, but he paid to attention
to the letters • he had received these warnings of danger,
and had totally disregarded them. And what did he
do after he had had his second interview with Mr. and Mrs.
Wilson? He continued to cohabit with his wife. If the
party' accused, should prove that the party proceeding had a
knowledge of the adultery, a criminis scientia, it was a bar to
the-suit. Here the condonation was pleaded; the husband had
received letters relating to the conduct of the wife ; it had been
proved that means of identification had been devised, he had
declared that the person implicated. must have been his wife,
and yet he continued to cohabit with her. In the case of
"Elwys v. Elwyn," or rather the dictum of Lord Stowell upon
it, the condonation was not pleaded, as in the present case, for
'there was not the probabilis scientia. To the dictum
of Lord Stowell he was disposed to pay great
deference, and he says that in case a husband has some suspi-
cion, enough to satisfy his own mind, but not to instruct a
legal case, he might perhaps continue cohabitation for the
purpose of discovering the party. In the case of " Timmins es
Timmins," however, Lord Stowell expressed himself strongly
as to' the necessity of the husband, though condonation
was not pleaded,, not having slept with his wife after
the fact of the adultery having come to his knowledge.
It was true that in the present case on the 9th of May Mr.
Wilson had not a personal interview with Dr. Dillon, yet the
Learned Judge could not but think that it was difficult for Dr.
Dillon to escape from one of two conclusions, either that Dr.
Dillon did not give credit to the story, or that he was very
reckless about cohabiting with her again, and the latter the
Learned Judge thought was the more probable. The Learned
Judge held that the principles laid down by the Court in cases
of adultery ought to be strictly attended to. Perhaps, in the
present case, he might not be fuel ned to hold, were
these circumstances the only ones with respect to Dr.
Dillon, that they would bar his obtaining a divorce,
hut there were many other things to be looked to,
There could be no doubt whatever that if the interviews that
had taken place between the parties during the pendency of the
suit had come to the knowledge of the Court that it, would not
have permitted the case to proceed. None of those facts
ought to have been kept back from the Court in cases of adul-
tery. In former times great doubts were entertained whether
a solicitor would be justified in keeping hack what he knew from
the knowledge of the Court, but it never could lie in the mouth
of the husband to lay that he would afford no information to the
Court as to what took place. There was a still further
point of no small importance to the final determination of
the present ease ; here had been no action at common law ;
the alleged adulterer remained undiscovered, and it had not
been shown that any attempts had been made to discover
him. In argument, it was true, it had been said that Dr.
Dillon's finances would not allow inquiry, but what was
there in the case to show that the Court ought to dispense
with such evidence? There were letters also; giving important in-
formation of the adultery, and they were also withheld from the
Court. If the story was true that the letters were written by one
who must have known the facts, Dr. Dillon bad been informed
that the adulterer was the son of a solicitor, and the number
of his chambers in Lincoln's-inn had even been stated.. This
person knew the house at Gadshill before the 29th of December :
he must have been there previously ; he was there afterwards,
according to the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson. If such
were the case how was it possible the Court could say that the
individual could not be traced out. In the case of Timmins v.
Timmins, the withholding of evidence was strongly commented
on by Lord Stowell, but in the present case such evidence would
be of tenfold importance, and yet the evidence had been withheld
In ordinary cases proceedings at common law were not neces-
sary. Far otherwise was it, however, in the present case, when
the identity of the adulterer, and the withdrawal of the evidence
on that subject, became of paramount importance. It was
manifest that in a. case like the present, the confronting of
witnesses would have thrown more light upon the subject than
any written examination. If ever there was a case in which
an action of common law ought to be tried, it was the present.
Doing as his predecessors had frequently done in • the
chair, taking
into his consideration all these circum-
stances, the charge of adultery was proved by three witnesses,
whose capacity he had no right to deny, and and if there was
no other testimony the adultery would be established; but op-
posed to that testimony was that of four witnesses equally res-
pectable and equally to be believed. The present case, as far
as concerned his wife,
was not a c.vil but a criminal proceeding,
and if there was any doubt she was entitled to the benefit of it.
In his opinion the evidence, on the part of the wife preponde-
rated, but it was not free from reasonable doubt; but it was not
on that ground alone that he refused'to grant a divorce. I look,
observed the Learned Judge, in continuation, to the circum-
stances before the marriage, and the neglect of warn-
ing afterwards, direct and indirect; I look to the
unjust cohabitation after the discovery of adultery ; I look to the
recklessness shown by Dr. Dillon in this cohabitation, to
the suppression of evidence in Dr. Dillon's possession, to
the absence of evidence, the Court was bound to require,
to the non- discovery of the adulterer, and the want of
proceedings at common law ; and for all these reasons, I
am of opinion, that if I were to pronounce for this di.
vorce, I should do towards the party proceeded against
an act not warranted by the legal considerations of the case, and
set an example of granting relief in a case of great doubt, to
one whose whole conduct towards his wife, during the whole
progress of this suit, shows that he has no just claim. I there-
fore dismiss the party.
Thhee
case result
judgment, therefore, is, that the Court 1..-
fused the divorce asked for by Dr. Dillon.
T
seemedto excite considerable interest in Court.

FATS L ACCIDENT. - Between eight ind nine
o'clock yestet day morning James Buchan, aged 43 years, a
journeyman painter and glazier, expired at St. George's Hos-
pital, from the severe injuries he sustained by falling out of
a window he was cleaning, on Monday last, only three feet from
the ground, at the residence of Mr. Evans, 44, Hans-place,
Sloane-street, Chelsea. 'I he unfortunate man fell on his back,
and on being raised up was found to have sustained a compund
fracture of his right leg, of so dreadful a nature as to cause
his death.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,

CLERKENWELL.-(THIS DAY.)
Catherine Leary was charged under the following circum-
stances :—Last night, between seven and eight, Police-con-
stable Archer proceeded to Bell-court, Gray's Inn-lane, to
disperse a mob of low characters who had assembled there.
On reaching the place he found the prisoner literally mad
drunk, and throwing her little infant, not more than a few
months old, into the .air; sometimes catching it in its fall,
and sometimes allowing one of the bystanders to do so. Then
she would throw it on the ground, and roll it about like a foot-
ball. When the constable apprehended her, the helpless little
sufferer was almost insensible. The prisoner refused to go to
the station-house, and so violent and pertinacious did she be-
come, that no less than three constables were obliged to assist
in bringing her there.
Inspector Jarvis, with laudable humanity, ordered a search
to be made after her other child. She refused to give up the
key of her miserable:apartment, but it was broken open, and
the child was found in a deplorable state of filth and emacia-
tion. The Inspector stated that she was drunk six days out of
the seven.

Mr. GREENWOOD ordered the ehildren tr be consigned to
the parish officer, and the prisoner to be sent to the House of
Correction for twenty-one days.
Jeremiah M' earthy, a young boy of most diminutive stature,
was committed for having feloniously entered the shop of Mr.
C:oehrane, baker, Francis-street, Tottenham-court-road, yes-
terday afternoon, arid stealing the till therefrom, which con-
tained about a pound in silver.

WORSHIP-STREET-(THIS DAY.)
Ann White, a young woman of deplorable appearance, was
brought before Mr. Bingham, and charged with being a street
beggar.
'1 he prisoner was taken into custody in Finsbury-place,
where she was found sitting at the step of a door, exhibiting
a written paper, representing her to be in a state of starva-
tion, and imploring assistance.
In answer to the charge the prisoner, with a profusion of
tears and sobs, declared that she was most willing to labour for
her livelihood, but she had been unable to obtain any emplwy-
ment for the last six weeks, and was in the last state of destitu-
tion and wretchedness.
The MAGISTRATE was visiby impressed with the truth of her
statement, and was about to direct her how to proceed in order
to obtain parish relief, when
Horsford, a mendicity ()Meer, stepped forward and said that
the prisoner was an incorrigible beggar, who had carried on a
long career of imposition, and had been twice convicted.—She
was committed for a month to the House of Correction.

THE ROE FIAMPTON

M URDER.

BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.)
The anxiety which was excited to so considerable a degree
in the case of Daniel Good,- appears to have quite abated in the
case of Molly Good; for though it was expected that she and
Richard Gamble would be examined at this office to-day, the
Court was by no means crowded, and Bow-street was as quiet
as it ever is.
The night charges having been disposed of by Mr. JARDINE,
Mr. HALL entered the Court, accompanied by the Earl of
Uxbridge, and took his seat on the bench at half-past ten, when
Mary alias Molly Good and Richard Gamble were placed
at the bar, charged with being accessories after the fact, with
Daniel Good, in the murder of Jane Jones, alias Good, at
Roeliampton:
Mr. Maule appeared for the prosecution on behalf of the
Crown ; Mr. Pelham appeared for Molly Good; and Gamble
was unrepresented.
Mr. Pelham rose, and addressing Mr. Hall, said—Sir, I 're-
quest that you will allow me to see Mary Good : I have been
instructed by certain of her friends in the east end of the town,
and I now attend to watch her interests.
Mr. HALL—Perhaps you are not aware of another applica-
cation that is about to be made ?
Mr. Maule then rose, and said—Sir, I am under the neces-
sity of asking you to postpone this ease for a few days : the
reason of it is that the witnesses who were here last night have
all gone home ; and living, as you Irtiow, Sir, some distance
off, at Putney, Roehampton, and thereabouts, it will take
some time to collect them. I was unfortunately obliged to
leave the Court last night before the case was quite concluded,
and I neglected to leave instructions for the witnesses to be in
attendance here to-day ; the consequence is that most of them
are absent. If you will postpone the case, however, Sir, say
till Monday, I will take care that no further delay ahail take
place on my part.
Mr. Pelham—Sir,.l appear for Mary Good, and am inclined
to ask you not to grant this application, because from what I
know of the evidence, I do not think there is sufficient to war-
rant you in remanding this person any more. If Mr. Maule.
however, will state the precise charge against her, I shall know
more about it.

Air. HALL—As the circumstance now stands, there is quite
notigh, I apprehend, to justify me in detaining both of them,
as connected same way or other in this transaction ; because
there is property found on them which is clearly proved till a
very recent period to have been in the possession of the de-
ceased. At the same time, in the course of this investigation
certain expressions fell from each of them which tended, as far
as they went, to show a knowledge of tchat had occurred. Yet
it might be shaped in a variety of ways ; I cannot tell what
the ultimate result may be ; but I still think there is quite
enough to justify me in drawing an inference that they may be
concerned in this transaction.
Mr. Pelham—l presume then that they are charged with
being accessories.
Mr. IL LL—I do not know, and perhaps Mr. Maule does
not wish to tell; and I must say that things came out yesterday
which convinced me that he had taken a very judicious course
in this affair.
Mr. Pelham—Of course, I submit to you, Sir. I have,
however, a case from her friends which will clear up any shade
that may at present seem to rest ul.on her character.
Mr. ll.u.r.—That is very possible"; but you know she may
be charged with one thing, and be sent to prison for another.
Mr. ,%taule—l only watit the case postponed for a few days
to collect the evidence—Monday will suit me.
Mr. Pelham—Very well, that will do for me.
Mr. HALL—Any hour convenient for you. Mr. Jardine is
kind enough to say that he will take the night charges; we will
then, if you please, begin at ten o'clock.
Mr. Per,iram—Perhaps you will allow me now, Sir, to con.
for with Mary Good ?
• Mr. HALL—Certainly. Then addressing the prisoner
Gamble, he said, " Gamble, you have heard what has passed;
you have no person here acting for you professionally. I have
stated the reason why we cannot go into your case to-day, but
it will be entered into on Monday, when your case will be gone
on with without delay.
The prisoners were then remanded till ten o'clock on Monday.
Mr. HALL to Mr. Alaule—Sir, I beg to tender you my
thanks for the very able assistance I received from you yesterday.

NATIONAL CONVENTION,
(THIS DAY.)
The Convention met this day at the usual hour.
Mr. Du NCAN took the chair.
The names of the Delegates were called over.
The Convention was occupied the whole morning in receiv-
ing Reports from various Associations.
" Mr. CAMPBELL reported from the English Executive, from
which it appeared that they had been in existence twelve
months. At the time they were established the Association
contained only 70 or 80 towns, and at the present time it num-
bered 350. In London, at the formation of the Association,
there were 17 or 18 " localities," and at the present time they
numbered 40. In Northampton, at the commencement, they
had no " locality ;" at the present time they numbered seven
or eight. In Birmingham they had increased in numbers of
individuals, though not in Associations. In Leicester, at the
commencement of the Association, there were but 100 mem-
bers; now they numbered 1,200. In Nottingham they had a
large increase, as also in Derby, the Potteries, Cheshire, and
other places.
The Address to the people of England was then submitted to
the Convention. The Address had been got up, calling on the
people to support and advance the principles of the Charter.
The Address, with a few verbal amendments, was then
agreed to.
Mr. O'CortNo a said that as a proof cf the strong feeling that
existed in the manufacturing districts on the subject of the
Charter, he had to inform them that there was a man in the
room who had walked all the way from Manchester to attend
the procession to the House of Commons, on the day the Na-
tional Petition is to be presented.—( Cheers.)
The Convention adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.

LLOYD'S SHIPPING-(T HIS DAY).
LONDON, APRIL 22.—Wind this day at' noon, E.
DEAL, APRIL 21.—Wind E. N.E., moderate.—Arrd. from
the River acid sailed, York, Nith, and Columbus, for Bombay;
Briton, Mauritius.
SHEERNESS, APRIL 21.—The Foxhound, Betts, from the
Straits, which was ashore or, the Grain Spit, has been got off
without damage.
PRNZANCE, APRIL 20.—Arrd. off, St. George, Wilson,
Port 'Melbourne, sailed 16th of November; City of London,
Martin, Mauritius; New Phoenix, Simpson, Jamaica; Arnold
and Hector, Messina:
BRISTOL, APRIL 21. —Sid. Irvine, Quebec.
LIVERPOOL, APRIL 21.—Wind easterly, light. —Sld. Celia,
Large, Jamaica; Windsor Castle, Bombay; Sunflower, Bahia;
Leonora, Demerara; General Wilshire, Baltimore; Oakland,
New Orleans; Alabama and Oxford, New York.
Orr CORK, APRIL 19. Marys, Robinson, Mauritius ;
Coronet, Bute, Charleston. The greater patt of the wind-
bound vessels are now under way, with a light breeze from the
southward, including the British Queen, Argyle, and Ann and
Mary, for St. John's, New Brunswick.
SCILLY.—Atrd., between the 12th and 19th April, Herald,
Hancock, Batavia; John Tomkinson, Hutchinson, and Eliza
Stewart, Miller, China; John Hellena, Port Rico; Urinden,
Ameln, Batavia, for Amsterdam ; Charlotte, New Orleans, for
Gothenburg; Stadt Schiedam, Boer; John Crec., Calcutta.
PORTSMOUTH, APRIL 21.—Wind E.N.E.—Arrd. Port to
Port, Bahia, for Hamburgh. The Experiment, from Card to
Newcastle, got ashore on the Sand Head this morning, but is
expected off next tide.

OFF SA LCOMBE, APRIL 19. —Eleazer and Heline, Havan-
nah, for Hamburgh.
FALMOUTH, APRIL M.—Rind E. to N.E. moderate
breeze.—Arrd. Forth (steamer), Havannah, left 15th ult.,
Nassau 31st, Bermuda sth inst., and Fayal 14th inst. Arrived
off, Republic, Tegeley, Havannah for Bremen. Thc• Integrity,
Lockman, front Calcutta, sailed hence this morning, has put
back with damage, having been in contact with the Wow
Johanna (Dutch barque), which proceeded.
SCILLY, APRIL 18..—The Celt, Galway, loading rice at
Batavia, for Demerara, sprung a leak, and received damage,
and discharged part of cargo.
SOUTHAMPTON, APRIL 21.—Arrd. Tay (steamer), with the
Jamaica and Leeward Islands mails. The Dee (steamer) was
safe at Havannah on the 29th ult.

THE MARKETS.-(THIS DAY.)
CORN EXCHANGE.
The arrivals sinee Monday have been small. Wheat firm for
good qualities, but dull for all other sorts. Barley and Oats as
last quoted, with a slow sale. Flour met a slack demand.
SMITHFIELD.
The supply was an average, and there being few at market,
trade becartie heavy, and lower prices were submitted to. Beasts,
474 ; Sheep and Lambs, 6,360 ; Pigs, 312 ; Calves, 185.
Bed, 33. to 4s. 2d. ; Mutton, 30. 2d. to 3s. 10d. ; Veal 4s. to
os. 2(1. ; Pork, 33.6 d. to ss. ; Lamb, 6s to 6s. 4d.
COLONIAL MARKET.
There was little busines, transacted; but holders were firm,
and in prices little variation took place.
TE,I 1. AIIKET.
The demand was steady, and prices firm. G mpany's Congou
ls. 10d., cash.

TALLOW MARKET.
The Market was inactive, but prices were steady, at 6i. 3d.
on the spot.

Her Majesty and Prince Albert, attended by the
'..oval Suite, left Buckingham Palace this afternoon for
Claremont Park, where the Royal party will spend a few
days, and then return to the metropolis.
Galvanism is now being applied in the blasting of
rocks M the vicinity of Glasgow, and is found to be more effec•
tive than gunpowder.