and causes could not hold the hand of the Court unless the wife was to blame. In the present case, such residence and mode of life, twenty years past, did not affect the suit directly, and indirectly only so far as it was one of the in gredients of the case. In 1825, Lady Dysart went to Buckminster, by desire of some of Lord Dysart's family. Her second visit took place in 1826, and she continued there till the spring of 1827, and during this renewed cohabitation legal cruelty was charged against Lord Dysart. The only witness to prove the charge was Elizabeth Parker, a housemaid in the late Lord Huntingtower's family, since in the service of Mrs. Toone, Lady Dysart's mother. She deposed to very strange habits Lord Dysart then indulged in, which, though they showed a disregard of his wife's comforts, could not be called legal cruelty. The language which Lord Dysart applied to Lady Dysart was certainly, if this witness were credited, of the foulest and most disgraceful description, showing that at the time it was used he was totally forgetful of all respect for himself and decency towards his wife. Such language would induce the Court more readily to believe the evidence of personal violence. This witness did not see actual violence, but she heard Lady Dysart scream "Murder," and had seen the marks of pinches and bruises, which must have been caused by violence. Lady Dysart quitted Buckminster in June 1827, and did not return till 1834, having resided during the seven years with her family, and at their expense. In 1833, Lord Huntingtower died; and the cohabitation was renewed in Hyde Park Place. Lady Dysart returned

to Buckminster in 1836. He now had to consider whether any such acts of cruelty were committed as would revive former acts, if any, for the return to cohabitation operated as a legal condonation of the past. He should divide the subject-matter of the alleged occurrences between July, 1836, and April, 1887, into, first, general ill-treatment, including words of abuse and improper deprivations; and secondly, conduct directly falling within the definition of legal cruelty. Mrs. Hill was the only witness produced by Lady Dysart. From her evidence it appeared that Lord Dysart kept every thing under his own control at Buckminster, including matters generally committed to the charge of a lady; that the house was dilapidated; that there was but one sitting-room; that the furniture was not arranged with any regard to Lady Dysart's comfort; a very scarce supply of coals, and, in one particular, a disregard of Lady Dysart's health and comfort, if this witness spoke truly, which was very disgusting; and this for the almost incredible purpose of obtaining manure for the land! Conduct of this description was petty tyranny; it might show either a miserly spirit of penuriousness, or a very peculiar disposition of mind, or a very culpable indifference to the happiness and comfort of Lady Dysart; it might be a breach of moral obligations, but he was not prepared to say: it came within the limits of legal cruelty. But these circumstances were not unimportant with regard to other matters, as indicia of the mind and disposition, and of the animus with which they were done. Under this head he must notice the language sworn by Hill to have been

used by Lord Dysart to his wife. He would not read the very words. If under any circumstances Lord Dysart did so entirely forget what was due to his wife, against whose moral conduct there was not the slightest impeachment. no words of condemnation would be too strong; and though the expressions did not contain threats, (though some approach thereto,) such a total abandonment of selfcontrol would be a circumstance admissible to show the danger of future cohabitation. The learned judge then read the evidence of Mrs. Hill, detailing a scene in which Lord Dysart, lying on his back on the floor, was holding Lady Dysart by the wrists, she lying upon her back on his breast; the witness observing that they were laughing part of the time. The learned judge was of opinion that force was here applied for an object not justifiable, namely, to compel Lady Dysart to make some promise; but he was not clear that both parties were not equally to blame that it was not a species of horse-play, in which both participated, and consequently it was not an act of cruelty. The most important transaction was that of the 23rd of January. Mrs. Hill hearing Lady Dysart call out "Murder!" went into the room and found Lord Dysart sitting down and holding Lady Dysart in a manner which she described as cruel and brutal; he held her for an hour and a half; she feared that he would dash his wife's brains out. If this evidence was credible, and not afterwards corrected and contradicted, he was of opinion that the acts constituted legal cruelty. On cross-examination, however, this witness

admitted that she laughed at some of the expressions of Lord Dysart. The origin of this dispute was admitted by Lord Dysart to have been his wife's throwing slops out of window; but he charged his wife with being the aggressor, and stated that the restraint imposed upon her was in self-defence. If all the facts set forth in Lord Dysart's answer were true, they did to a considerable degree alter the impression made by Hill's evidence; but still the most prudent conduct on the part of Lord Dysart would have been to leave the scene of disturbance. Before he expressed any opinion as to the effect of the evidence, and its legal consequences, he must consider the conduct of Lady Dysart With regard to this lady's general conduct, whether provoking or not, the evidence was not satisfactory or conclusive. All agreed that she was a kind mistress, but some said that she was disposed to irritate Lord Dysart. He (Dr. Lushing ton) could not so far lose sight of the nature of the establishment and general conduct of Lord Dysart as not to know that Lady Dysart must have had constant cause for irritation; but he by no means on that account justified her in the use of intemperate and improper language, much less any personal violence. There was an expression attributed to Lady Dysart by two witnesses of a disgusting character. There was no doubt positive evidence of the utterance of the words, but he must add that the evidence was in many repects deficient in probability. Nothing gave rise to those expressions, and what was most wonderful, no anger was excited. This was not credible; Lord Dysart was a pas

sionate man: did his anger slumber then when the charge, if made, would have roused the most passive and inert of human kind? The learned judge then commented at some length upon the letter from Lady Dysart, noticing the observation made in argument, that Lord Dysart had had an undue advantage in having obtained his own letters back from his wife, which were not produced. This observation was not without weight; but had an application been made to the Court, it would have exerted its authority to obtain them. The question he had to decide was, had the acts done by Lord Dysart rendered future cohabitation unsafe? If he was not satisfied of the affirmative, he would not pronounce the decree. He must be further satisfied that this danger had arisen without provocation on the part of Lady Dysart, and notwithstanding her correct performance of the duties of a wife, amongst which is obedience in all things not sinful. If a wife could secure her own safety by lawful obedience and proper self-command, she had no right to come to this Court, which afforded its aid only where the necessity for its interference was absolutely proved. He saw very much to blame in the conduct of both parties great and grievous errors, which had blighted all the fair prospects which wealth, rank, and station combined to form. He thought Lady Dysart to blame for absenting herself so long from her husband's roof; for not conforming more to his tastes and habits, which, strange and eccentric as hey were, it was still her duty to nave conformed to to the utmost. He knew she had a hard task to

perform with habits and views of inclination so directly opposite; but the path of duty was often beset with thorns. In one word, Lady Dysart had failed in the first great duty of submission. With regard to Lord Dysart, he had, no doubt, a right to choose his own mode and style of life; but, morally speaking, he was not justified in all the petty annoyances and deprivations he inflicted upon Lady Dysart; above all, he was not justified in the gross, and he must add, infamous language, he applied to her; he was not justified in degrading her as he did from her proper sphere as his wife. His conduct had alienated her affections, and contributed its full share to the disgrace of the present exposure. But on such grounds alone no judgment could be grounded. Could he believe that Lady Dysart expected serious personal injury which she could not avoid by her own patience and abstinence? Did he in any part of her conduct and correspondence, throughout the whole period of her married life, see signs of bodily fear or apprehension? Did even her conduct since the separation carry with it any such proof? He thought decidedly not. Did Lord Dysart in the midst of his wildest eccentricities show any disposition deliberately, without provocation, to inflict personal violence? He thought not; though he did not acquit him of intemperate and most culpable conduct. But he could not come to the conclusion that a return to cohabitation would expose to danger or reasonable risk the personal safety of Lady Dysart, and if not convinced of such danger or risk, he was bound to refuse the prayer for a

margin. The object of conveying the diamonds by deed was to evade the payment of the legacy duty, which would attach upon a bequest by will; but neither the diamonds nor the deed were delivered to the donee, who, according to the evidence, appeared not to be aware of his uncle's intention until he received the deed of gift in a sealed envelope from Lady Beresford, upon the death of Mr. Henry Philip Hope, in 1839. By his will, of which the defendants were executors, he left the residue of his property to his three nephews, and the question at present for consideration was, whether the deed of 1838 operated under the circumstances in such a manner as to vest the whole of the collection of diamonds in Mr. Alexander Hope as a gift, or whether, supposing such deed to be ineffectual for that purpose, the diamonds became part of the residue, and so were divisible equally between the three nephews of the deceased. The learned gentleman having stated the facts of the case to this effect, the following witnesses were called upon the part of the plaintiff :

Francis Humbert, examined by Mr. Serjeant Channell.-I reside at 29, Connaught-terrace. I am 60 years old. In 1814, I was in the service of Mr. H. P. Hope, as butler and confidential servant. I always went into the country with him, and always to Holland, where he went every year. He died on the 5th of December, 1839. Whilst he lived in Norfolk-street, I knew that he had a collection of precious stones in a mahogany cabinet, with a silver plate on the top, and his arms on the plate. There were silver

mountings on the corners, and the handles were silver also. It was kept in Park-lane, in the iron safe, in the back drawingroom. I have seen the box open many a time. The first time was more than twenty years ago. It was made by Bramah. It opened with folding doors at the side. It was lined inside with velvet. I knew Mr. Hertz, the jeweller. He used to be frequently at Norfolk-street during the latter part of the time in which we lived there. He used to see the jewels, and when he was there he and Mr. Hope used to be employed about the jewels. Some time after Mr. Hertz had begun to come there, a new cabinet was made. It was larger by several inches than the other. In other respects it was nearly the same, but with not quite so much silver on it. It was kept in Norfolk

street, in the same iron chest as the other. The old one was given to me empty after some time. I, after that, frequently saw the new cabinet with jewels in it. I removed it to Connaught place, where it was kept in my bed-room until the iron safe was put up in the back drawing-room, to which it was removed. I frequently saw Mr. Hertz with Mr. Hope in Connaught place. Mr. Hertz made a catalogue of the jewels. Mr. Hope went to Holland on the 26th or 28th of June, 1838. He returned about the end of September. He went also on the 22nd of June, 1839, and returned about the end of September. I accompanied him out and home. He died at Bedgebury-park. was there, having been sent by Lord Beresford to bring a doctor down. After Mr. Hope's death I

I