The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-15 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

HARRIS V. If OUNCHIUSBAWD.

This was an action for the recovery of the value of a cistern,
purchased and paid for by the plaintiff, at a sale by auction of the
effects of a bankrupt, named Turner. • The auction took• place
in the premises occapied by Turner, which were afterwards as-
signed to the defendant. When the plaintiff went to remove the
cistern, the defendant refused to give it up, alleging that it was a
fixture, and the plaintiff therefore brought the present action.—
It was urged in defence, that in terms of a clause in the lease the
cistern was a fixture, and could not be removed without injuring
the house. —The Jury, however, found for the plaintiff—Da-
mages 5/.

ARCHES' COURT.
ATKINSON V. ATKINSON.

In this suit, which was brought by Mrs. Atkinson for a divorce,
upon the ground of adultery, alleged to have been committed by
Mr. Atkinson with divers loose women, the arguments were
this morning resumed.
Dr. ADDANIS appeared to oppose the divorce. He did not deny
that Mr. A. committed adultery previous to 1819, but argued that
a condonation had taken place at that period, and that there was
not sufficient evidence to prove that any acts of adultery were
subsequently committed. The parties were under age
when they married in 1812, and appeared to have lived
unhappily from a diversity of temper. Mrs. A. was stated to have
an ungovernable temper, and, on one occasion to have actually ex-
cited her husband to fight a duel with her own brother. But
Mr. Atkinson was guilty of youthful indiscretions previous to
1819, he admitted; but contended that, subsequent to that period,
there was no evidence of adultery. The adultery which was al-
leged to have been committed with Mrs. Rolls, was altogether
improbable, as she was a lady of great respectability, residing with
her friends. All that was proved was, that Mr. A. visited Mrs.
Rolls, and that occasionally, when he was in the house, the win-
dow blinds were let down. Harriet Hobbs deposed to observing
Mr. Atkinson and Mrs. Rolls in an equivocal situation ; but that
girl's evidence was contradicted, and proved to be un-
worthy of credit. He therefore submitted that there
was no evidence to prove that any act of adultery had
been committed by Mr. Atkinson, subsequent to the condonation
which took place in 1819, when the parties:returned to cohabita-
tion. The final separation was in 1822, when Mrs. Atkinson re-
turned from Yorkshire, where she had been on a visit with her
sister. She then charged her husband with having committed
adultery with Mrs. Rolls, and then intimated her intention of ap-
plying for a divorce. He insisted that there was not evidence to
support that charge, and that the Court was bound, therefore, to
pronounce against the divorce.
Dr. LUSHINGTON, with whom was Dr. Doosoar, appeared for
Mrs. Atkinson, and contended that there had been no condonation
of the acts of adultery alleged to have been committed between the
husband and Jane Cockrel, or between the husband and other lewd
women with whom it was proved he was connected. The Court
had laid it down in the case of Durant v. Durant, that there could
be no condonation of acts of adultery unknown to the wife ; and
it did not appear that Mrs. Atkinson was aware of any adulterous
intercourse between her husband and any other woman, but.Anlll
Harris. Having disposed of the law as it referred to that point, the
Learned Counsel thee called the 'attention of the Court to the
facts as disclosed in evidence. One fact which the Court could
not have lost sight of, was, that the evidence of a medical gentle-
man proved beyond all doubt that Mr. Atkinson had been
unwell subsequent to 1819. If this fact was not sufficient,
there was the evidence of Lieutenant Burney himself, a young
man, and, of course, a reluctant witness. The testimony or
Lieutenant Burney went to prove, that in the month of August,
1820, he and Mr. Atkinson went on the pursuit of pleasure to the
Isle of Wight, and that they took two common women with them,
from Gosport. Here was demonstration of Mr. Atkinson's in-
fidelity; taking all these circumstances together, liajnsisted that
there was no doubt that the act of adultery was committed with
Mrs. Rolls, as well as with divers other women. She was of a
rank of life very inferior to Mr. Atkinson, indeed so little
education had her father, that he aigued a mark to his
deposition, instead of writing his name. Mr. Atkinson
was morning, noon, and night, in company with this
woman, and could there be any doubt of the real object of his
intercourse, even if the evidence of the witnesses on that point
was entirely rejected, instead of amounting, as it did, to fleapit
proof of the adultery. But, if any thing was wanted to coofirm
the fact, that confirmation was to found in the admission of Mr.
Atkinson ; for when his wife, 'in the presence of two witnesses,
charged him with keeping Mrs. "Rolls, he answered " I know I
do." Under all the circumstances, he submitted that Mrs. At-
kinson was entitled to the relief for which she prayed.
Sir J. Niel-tor., after taking a brief review of the evidence,
gave it as the opinion of the Court; that there was no evidence of
any other condonation but that respecting Ann Harris, which was
admitted in the libel. The disgraceful intercourse carried on by
Mr. Atkinson for a series of years could not be doubted. The
Court therefore considered that she was entitled to the relief for•
which she prayed, and therefore pronounced for the divorce.
The Court then adjourned.