New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-07-27

t... time eisry Of herr, kept during Ser residen"
AZ Moor Park. El ito lis h.uds aud shoedsd the
so's foundation Of the present proceedios' Ia
this diary che recorded st lergts, and VIA
great particularly, the rise aud sroSa on
her part Of passion for the doctor. TO which. as
cerdng TO tdis record be hsd long continued insen-
.;bls. but lad at l.st been induced to recprocate
Iesd;rs TO scenes between then circumstsnaauy
described in the diary, on the strength Of which, As
confessions sf guilt, the divorce WAS asked for.
Tb;sw..ths 1hsle OF the case. There WAS no
corroborst7e eydence. A groom, 8 former Servant
IN Dr.. Lanes establishment, was indeed introduced
70 prove some familiarity on the par. Of Dr.. L'ne
70 ward Ms. Robinson or certain occanoa ous
this witness was shown to be worthless 'euoT,
unworthy Of credit; and il WAS testified By numef-
or. other wtnesses, patients in The establishment
frat there was nothing peculiar ia the conduct
Of DR.. Lsne toward Mrs. R0binson, so far as 'aey
saw or in tie attentions which be showedt - ner'
DR., Lane. who was placed in very awkward pre-
dicauert By tbs proceeding, would Willingly IN
hi, character Of q correspondent, have oeen eAau'
med as a witness: bat the late English statute
which gives to parties the right to testify expressly
excerpts all suits ard proceedings in which the ques
ton Of adultery is involved. II was admitted taN
as asain,t Dr. Lane the entries IN Me- Roousous
journal were no! evidence, and as there was no'n-
inc else ssaius, him il was moved to dismiss the
suit AZ against him. in order that he might be called
wituess. Mr. justice Wighman was OF oPa-
ion that. as DR.. Lane was the only person
who could be called to contradict the en-
tries in tire journal the wife was, on
general principles, entitled to the benefit oil bis
testimony; snd that it was not competent for the
husband, BY making co defendant of person
against whom there was no testimony, to deprive
bis wife of the bereft of that persons evidence.
The majority of the Court, however, thought thaI
they were precluded by the terms OF the Divorce
act from granting this motion. That act expressly
provided that the alleged sdalterer should be made
correspondent unless the Court, on special GROUNDS,
should excuse the petitioner from proceeding against
him. In this case, no such application hsd been
made by the petitioner; and, by the terms OF the
act, the alleged adulterer wss necessary party to
tie suit, rot only in its inception, but throughout
lis continuance, and unit fual Judgment was pro-
rounced.
The evidence Of Dr. Lane being thus excluded,
q Mr. Thorn, whose name was also mentioned in
the diary, was introduced to prove the rhap'odicN
and romantic view which Mrs. Robinson took OF
the most common occurrences; and it was argued
from the journal itself, and from the total lack OF
corroboratiye testimony, that the diary could not
be relied upon as afordiDg sufficient foundation
for sentence of divorce. The judgment of the
Court was reserved, and at subsequent day one Of
the Judges stated that he began to have great
doubts as to the correctness Of the decision by
which Dr. Lsne's testimony had been excluded In
stead, however, of reversing that decision the
Court had thought best to postpone the case to
await the passage by Parliament Of pending bill,
degigned to amend the Divorce act by allowing the
Court the discretionary power to receive the test.
mony Of a correspondent.