Defendant then read a long ilotter alleging misconduct, and naming a certain individual, whereupon his Lordship observed: Tought to point out that, in reading that letter, you may be laying yourself open to an action for libel.
Defendant—I am aware of that, and am prepared to meet it.
His Lordship—The letter is not evidence against your wife. These ave only things you have said.
Newman said plaintiff admitted being on friend-i us with the individual named.
Plaintiff not being present when the proceedings "were resumed in the afternoon, his Lordship observed: Women are not noted for Defendant gave evidence as to the circumstances in which, as he claimed, the original agreement had been amended and the amended agreement broken by plaintiff, by forcibly removing "the child from his custody. He went on to say that, although he had made the gravest charges possible for a husband to make againat his wife. no answer hag been reesived from tiff, or the other individual concerned, nor relatives, to all of whom copies of the letter had been not always give consent.
Sometimes noonle do not consider worth while to answer charges of thie honourable onmnal this lobler:
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.