DIVORCE IN HIGH LIFE.

CURIOUS REVELATIONS. The divorce case, Claudet v. Claudet, Armstrong, Sefton, Lavagnino, and Parry, was recently heard in the London Divorce Court. It was a suit of remarkable character. The petition was that of the husband, a metallurgist, for a divorce by reason of his wife's adultery with the feur co-respondcntß, one of whom is Sir Alexander Armstrong, K.C.8,, who is connected with the medical department of the navy. Answers were filed denying the charge, and Sir Alexander Armstrong pleaded condom.tion.—ln opening the case Mr. Inderwick s«id the petitioner, Mr. Frederick Claudet,'resided at 10, Oak-hill-park, Hampstead. He married, -on the 31st of August, 1854, the respondent, Marv Harriet Stone, who was the daughter of a banker of Lombard-street. She was an attractive person, and her husband was very well off. The question raised by Sir A. Armstrong was as to whether the husband had condoned his wife's offence. He also pleaded the odd plea that the question of his alleged adultery had been referred to a third person, who found that the respondent had not misconducted herself, and that censequently the award absolved him from these proceedings. In 1863 she appeared to have made the acquaintance of Dr. Armstrong at the Isle of Wight. In August, 1865, the petitioner, upon his return from a fishing expedition in Norway, found a letter addressed to his wife from Dr. Armstrong, and that was the beginning of the unhappiness between himself and the respondent. The correspondence appeared to have been carried on by means of a private stationer in Vigo-street. About that time Dr. Armstrong was knighted and made a K.C.B. Tho learned counsel then read a number of letters bearing on the case. Ultimately the whole matter of Mrs. Claudet's alleged misconduct was referred to Captain Bedford Pirn, with the result which has been stated. Mr.. and Mrs. Claudet afterwards went abroad.—His lordship said that, from looking at the pleadings, it appeared to him to be a detailed plea of coudonation.—Mr. Inderwick, in continuing his addrass, said that the evidence would be that Sir Alexander Armstrong was continually at the house, and with the respondent, under suspicious circumstances, and also with the other co respondents. Mr. Louis Sefton was a singer, Colonel Parry belonged to the Royal Horse Artillery, and Lavagnino was a sjnger.—Mr. Frederick Claudet, the petitioner, was called. He said that there were five children of the marriage, all of whom were now over 16. After he saw the letter referred to, his wife promised to give up all further intimacy with Sir Alexander Armstrong. He was introduced to Sir Alexander at the Exhibition in 1862 by his wife. He received an anonymous letter warning him as to hi 3 wife's conduct. He had consulted counsel as to theadvisability of prosecuting Sir Alexander Armstrong for libel, and ultimately the matter was referred to Captain Bedford Pim in respect to the letters he had written. Witness believed that Sir Alexander was libelling his wife.— Mr. Bayford, on' behalf of the wife, said that he had read through the whole of the letters, and be could not defend the case in its entirety.—Cross-examined by Mr. Willis, Q.C. : Hi 3 wife told him that she had been the mistress of Sir Alexander Armstrong for 15 years. He suspected her in 1565, but had no proofs. She wrote to him in 18G6 that she had not wronged him. Evidence was then given by a coachman that th-s respondent was driven to the Albany, wher-2 Sir Alexander Armstrong lived, and that she had driven out with the other co-respon-dents. Evidence was also given of the visits of some of the co-respondents to the house during the absence of the petitioner. For the defence, Sir Alexander "Armstrong was called : He said that he first _ made the acquaintance of the respondent in 1562, in the Isle of Wight.- She was a very accomplished woman, and a very good artist, and he accompanied her to a number of picture galleries. She came to his chambers at the Albany, accompanied by her daughter. On one occasion he accompanied her home to Hampstead. He always ectertained great affection for her, and they mutually agreed, in the event of anything happening to the petitioner, that he would marry her. He denied that he wrote the anonymous letters to which reference had been made, and ho also denied that at any time there had ever been any improper intimacy with the re- j spondent. Captain Bedford Pim was called by Mr. Currie. He said that he was a j barrister of the Inner Temple. A matter ! was referred to him in which Mr. and Mrs. Clandet figured. The letters of Sir Alexander Armstrong were placed in his hands. He destroyed all of them. The question of adultery was mentioned by the solicitor. Mrs. Olacdet came to his chambers. She had her veil down, and he- would not know her if he saw her. Mrs. Claudet was a distant relative of his, while Sir Alexander Armstrong was an old friend.—Cross-ex-amined : He constantly saw Sir Alexander during this time, and he stoutly denied th# adultery.—Mrs. Claudet also repudiated the charge.—To the Judge: He was asked to intervene in the matter as a friend. The jury found that the respondent had committed adultery with all the co-respondents, and the petitioner had ■ hot condoned the offence.—His lordship granted a decree n'm, with cost 3. '