THE PALMERSTON SCANDAL.

Otago Witness, Issue 643, 26 March 1864, Page 21

THE PALMERSTON SCANDAL.

KANE V. O'XAJfE AN© PALMEHSTON (viscount).

This case, which has given rise to so much private gossip and ao many mysterious hints in some of the newspapers, appeared in the list for the first time this morning. The following is a copy of tht petition :—: —

"In her Majesty's Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. In the matter of Timothy Joseph O'Kane, of No. 21 Inverness road. Baystvater, in the county of Middlesex, gentleman, dated the 19th day of October, in the year of our Lord, 1863. Sheweth. 1, That your petitioner on the 2nd of October, 1851, lawfully married to Margaret Matilda Augusta Morris, of No. 2 John street, Sutton street, Commercial road east, ia the said county of Middlesex, spinster, at St. George's-in-the East, in the said county of Middlesex. 2. That after his said marriage, your petitioner lived and cohabited with his said wife at No. 2 John street, Sutton street, Commercial road east aforesaid, at Gravesend, in the county of Kent, at Dingle, Killarney, and Tralee, all in the county of Kerry, in Ireland, and at 26 Grove place, Brompton, in the county of Middlesex, and that there was issue to the marriage, namely, one son and four daughters. 3. That on or about the 16th day of June, 1863, and at divors other days and times, at Cambridge House, No, 4 Piccadilly, in the said county of Middlesex, and at divers other places, the said Margaret Matilda Augusta O'Kane committed adultery with one Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston, K.G, First Lord of her Majesty's Treasury. Your petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that this honorable court will be pleased to decree and declare the said marriage of your petitioner and the said Margaret Matilda Augusta O'Kane to be dissolved. And that your petitioner may have such further and other relief in the premises as to this honorable court may seem meet. And your petitioner claims twenty thousand pounds damages against the said Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerßton, KG., First Lord of her Majesty's Treasury. And your petitioner will ever pray, &c. — Timothy Joseph O'Kakb."

Thia petition was filed on the 19th of October last, and was served upon the respondent on the 21st of October. The respondent's solicitor, Mr. Charles Horsley, of 2 Staples Inn, entered an appearance for her on the 28th of October. The respondent's answer was filed on the 11th of December, denying first the alleged marriage, and secondly the alleged adultery. On the 17th of November, an order was obtained by the noble co-respondent for the delivery of particulars of the time and place of the alleged marriage and of the alleged adultery. This order had not been complied with. Mr. D. Seymour now moved that the petitioner be directed to supply these particulars within a certain time, or that the petition should be dismissed. In support of this application, the learned gentlewan quoted the cases of " Hare v. Hare" and i * Steward v. £4 .-ward" (v( v Law Times," vol. 8), and contended that the present case was still stronger. Mr. Seymour, in the course of his argument, cited an affidavit of Mr. Horsley, containing these words: — »• Lastly, I say I verily believe that the petition was presented, and filed, and served for purposes of extortion only, and that the petitioner has no case upon the merits." Sir James Wilde : This court, like all the courts of the country, is open to all miitora ; but it is a very reasonable prin» eiple that, when a person is bringing others into court, he should proceed with reasonable expedition, after he has brought the matter to issue. If that is true of other courts, it is especially true of the Court of Divorce, wherein charges are made which involve the reputation of those who are dragged into court ; and this court cannot tolerate for a moment any want of reasonable expedition which may be looked for on the part of the petitioner. In thia case the court was asked to make Borne order with regard to particulars, but the respondent, having already answered, is not entitled to make such an application. But she has a right to insist on the petitioner proceeding. I will, therefore make an orderaon the petitioner to show cause, on the next motion day (Tuesday), why he should nat proceed, or why the petition should not be dismissed.— London Evening Express, 26 th Feb.

, Highly Complimentary.— A gentlennn— it might have been the writer of thw paragraph— felt very uncomfortable a wck or so ago when on going to sit for hii photograph, lie was asked by the artist, who was by no warn " happy" in the pronunciation of some of his wonh. whether he wished to have his " ibol-foce » taken. A Just Retort.— A preacher of small intellect depending more on the power of n sanctimonious ™ S Jf c / Or aW«BPOrt,a W«BPOrt, thvou-!i life, than for any important good ho co-aid accomplish, rebuked a brother for Ins social fireside, and perhau* some frivolous conversation : " Brother," he replied ' I &ZiXsp"» tho lilieside ' wllile you « ivc