The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-23 00:00:00

Court as to what took place. There was a still further
point of no small importance to the final determination of
the present e Ise ; 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 had been informed
that the adulterer was the son of a solicitor, and the number
•f 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
I 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 circuni••
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 civil 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.
The result of this judgment, therefore, is, that the Court re-
fused the divorce asked for by Dr. Dillon.
The case seemed to excite considerable interest in Court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.
THE ROEHAMPTON MURDER.

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, a!ias Good, at
Roehampton.
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 know, 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 shall take
place on my part.
Mr. Pelham—Sir, I 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.
Mr. HALL—As the circumstance now stands, there is quite
enough. 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 what 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. HALL—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 upon her character.
Mr. HALL—That is very possible; but you know she may
be charged with one thing, and be sent to prison for another.
Mr. Maule—l only want 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. PELHAM—Perhaps you will allow me now, Sir, to con.
fer 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. Maule—Sir, I beg to tender you my
thanks for the very able assistance I received from you yesterday