Mr. Evans, to the amount of five pounds; that certain proofs appeared to be referred to, in the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, which were not set out; and that the House would require very satisfactory evidence with respect to the circumstances of the separation between Mr. and Mrs. George in 1828, a considerable time before the adultery was alleged to have been committed. Counsel being desired to state what witnesses they could adduce to explain the circumstances of the separation, Mr. Serjeant Merewether stated that he was not aware of any witness except a female servant who was in attendance, but that he would make inquiry whether further evidence could be adduced. The further consideration of the bill was therefore postponed. On a subsequent day, the counsel for the bill stated that, in consequence of their Lordships' intimation, he had caused inquiry to be made whether any further evidence could be adduced as to the circumstances of the separation; and he found that the only witness who could be brought forward was the female servant to whom he had formerly referred; that with respect to the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, the proofs alluded to were the ordinary exhibits made in the cause-the marriage-register, and other documents of that nature; and in so far as regarded proceedings at law, he was instructed that an arrangement had been made by Mr. Hammello with the defendant, that a verdict should be returned for five pounds; but that that agreement had been repudiated by Mr. George, and that an inquisition had been taken before the sheriff, when a verdict for five pounds was returned. With respect to the separation, counsel stated that, in the year 1828, differences having arisen between Mr. and Mrs. George, a separation took place between them; that they parted with great cordiality, and Mr. George took an affectionate leave of his wife at the door; that he was afterwards informed that she had soon been joined by a person of the name of Davis, and that they had proceeded together, sending the servant who accompanied them another way; that in consequence of the suspicion which had previously arisen with respect to Davis being thus confirmed, Mr. George refused to receive his wife back again, but yet had no evidence on which he could bring an action. The learned counsel added, that he was prepared to call the gentleman who had proposed the arrangement with respect to the verdict, who would state that that arrangement was suggested by him without the knowledge of the petitioner; and the petitioner was ready to disclaim all knowledge of the circumstance, and to give all further explanation that might be required. The counsel was informed that the circumstances appeared to require much more explanation than he appeared in a situation to give; that the House expected that some relations or friends would have been called to explain the circumstances of the separation; and that it appeared, in the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, that there had been a distinct contract between the parties with respect to the verdict. The counsel for the bill stated that if this were the impression of the House, he would not press for the hearing of the evidence. Further consideration postponed sine die. The case proceeded no further; the circumstances disclosed in the address of the learned Serjeant being amply sufficient to destroy all hopes of succeeding with the bill. MR. PERRY'S CASE.-SESSION 1838. Offer of an Annuity by Husband to Wife, if she would give up her adulterous connexion, she remaining his Wife.-Bill rejected. THE damages were laid in the declaration at 20007., but the amount awarded by the jury was only 1007.; a circumstance which gave rise to observation. The adultery, however, was clearly proved; but the conduct of Mr. Perry, as a husband, was considered deficient in the necessary caution and circumspection. The following question was put by one of their Lordships to the counsel for the bill, at the close of the evidence: "Whether he could get over the difficulty of his own case-Mr. Perry having offered his wife 2001. a year if she would give up her adulterous connexion, she remaining his wife; an error into which he appeared to have fallen from the excess of kind feeling, and want of caution." On the 27th March, 1838, it was moved and carried that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. COODE'S CASE.-SESSION 1839. Where the Adulterer is unascertainable, the Proceeding at Law will be dispensed with.-Precedents cited. THE petitioner's counsel stated that it had been found impossible to discover the adulterer, and consequently that a verdict at law could not be produced in this case. Being asked whether he could refer to any cases in which the record of a judgment at law for criminal conversation had been dispensed with, he cited the following precedents, namely, Farrer's case, in 1796("); M'Gauley's case, in 1797 (0); Twisselton's case, in 1798 (P); Woodmason's case, in 1798 (9); Bailey's case, in 1817 (); Stock's case, in 1829 ($); Shakerley's case, in 1830 ('); and Howell's case, in 1834 ("). The absence of a verdict at law being thus satisfactorily explained, and the evidence of adultery being complete, the bill passed. Besides the cases referred to in this case of Mr. Coode's, see Mr. Hope Weir's case, session 1757; Mr. Stott's case, session 1766; and Sir John Colleton's case; all supra, under their respective dates. DR. LARDNER'S CASE.-SESSION 1839. Separation occasioned by Wife's violent temper.-Subsequent adultery by Wife. -Delay in resorting to Parliament accounted for by Petitioner's inability to sustain the Expense. Of this singular case Mr. Finelly, in his Appeal Reports ('), gives the following account: The production of the record of a judgment at law for criminal conversation was dispensed with in this case; where, during a voluntary separation of the petitioner and his wife, she committed adultery, of which he was not informed until after the death of the adulterer. Held also that a lapse of nine years from the admitted discovery, and of nineteen years from the fact of the wife's adultery, was not a bar to the petitioner's right to a divorce a vinculo; he having shown that he was not able for want of funds to apply to Parliament sooner. Dr. Lardner was married to Cecilia Flood, in Dublin, in the (n) 40 Lords' Journals, 654. (°) 41 Lords' Journals, 173. (P) 41 Lords' Journals, 540. (9) 41 Lords' Journals, 555. () 51 Lords' Journals, 61. ($) 61 Lords' Journals, 547. In the preamble to the bill in this case it is stated, that "your subject hath by his agents used every possible endeavour to discover the person who lived with (") See Clarke and Finelly's Reports for 1839. year 1815. Her fortune was settled to her separate use for her life. They lived together for four years, and had children. In consequence of differences-arising, it was said, from the violence of the lady's temper—they separated voluntarily, but without deed, in 1819; after which she lived for about a year between the families of his father and her own, both residing in Dublin. In November 1820, she went, conducted by her brother, to board and lodge at the house of a Mr. Murphy, an officer in the customs, in Dublin. Mrs. Murphy, his wife, suspecting, after two or three months, from the lady's unceasing calls for Mr. Murphy for the most frivolous purposes ("), and from their general conduct, that there was an improper familiarity between them, felt bound to leave the house; but, after an absence of two months, she returned on condition that Mrs. Lardner was not to continue in the house. Mrs. Lardner was accordingly removed to lodgings near Dublin, hired for her by Mr. Murphy, and there both living under an assumed name she passed as his sister, and was delivered of a child in January 1821. Dr. Lardner resided in Ireland, and generally in or near Dublin, following literary occupations all that time, and up to 1827, when he came to reside in London. In the course of the year 1828, Mr. Murphy, then on his deathbed, as he and all his friends verily believed, called to his bedside his wife and his brother-a respectable solicitor in Dublin, and made to them a full declaration of his connexion with Mrs. Lardner, and of the birth of the child, the fruit of that connexion, and requested his brother to communicate the same to Mrs. Lardner's father after his own death. He died in January 1829; and his brother shortly afterwards made the communication, as requested, to Mrs. Lardner's father, who immediately sent one of his sons to communicate the matter to Dr. Lardner's family. This gentleman went and told Dr. Lardner's mother and sister, in the presence of Mrs. Lardner who was then residing with them, that he came from his father to desire her to tell the truth of all the circumstances relative to her adulterous intercourse with Mr. Murphy, and not to impose herself on her husband's family as an innocent woman. He then narrated the facts as communicated to and by his father, and Mrs. Lardner admitted that all that had been stated by Mr. Murphy was true; and she said she would go and take her child (then with Mr. Murphy's widow), and she accordingly did take the child. The mother and sister of Dr. Lardner kept this communi (") See the printed evidence, 71 Lords' Journal, Appendix No. 2, (D) 633. cation a secret from him, and it was not until the autumn of 1830 that he was informed of it by his brother, who had come to reside in London in 1829. In September 1830, Dr. Lardner gave instructions to sue for a divorce in the Ecclesiastical Court in Dublin; but, in consequence of a recriminatory suit instituted there by the wife, and of the difficulty of finding witnesses and providing for the costs, the definitive sentence of divorce a mensa et thoro was not delivered until 1832. The same want of funds prevented the petitioner from applying to Parliament for a divorce a vinculo from 1832 to 1839. The attention of the House was called to the delay-first to sue for the divorce in the Ecclesiastical Court in Ireland, and next to proceed on the sentence of that court in Parliament; but the circumstances proved being deemed to afford sufficient explanation of the delay, the bill was read a second time, and was afterwards passed. MR. WARR'S CASE.-SESSION 1840. Petitioner, from poverty, unable to take Proceedings at Law within the limits of the Statute of Limitations.-Proof of Adultery and Bigamy against Wife.— Conviction and Sentence.-Bill passed. COUNSEL heard to open the allegations of the bill; and having stated that, in consequence of suspicion as to the conduct of the wife, the petitioner had separated from her in the year 1827, and that adultery had been clearly shown to have existed in the year 1829; but that no action at law had been brought, in consequence of the inability of the petitioner (at that time a day-labourer) to sustain the expense of legal proceedings. The counsel was asked whether he could point out any case in which a bill had been suffered to proceed where there had been no action brought, and where so long an interval had occurred previous to the application for a divorce. In answer to which he stated, that he was not aware of any case presented under precisely similar circumstances, but understood that the case of Doctor Lardner's divorce (x) was to a certain degree similar; no action having been brought in that case, and no proceedings taken till after a considerable interval, in consequence of the circumstances of the party not permitting it; and that he should be able to prove that the present petitioner was not (*) Supra, p. 663. |