AN UNPRECEDENTED CASE.

Divorce Proceedings.

[FROM UUK LONDON CORRESPONDENT].

I send you herewith a somewhat amusing resuiwi of tho notorious Weldon case, which has at intervals for a considerable time past been occupying Sir James Hannen and the Court of Divorce. In order to make the circumstances fully understood, it may bo as well to oxplain that Mrs Weldon is a lady of good family, a clever vocalist, an ex tremely able teacher of music, and if not exactly in her ■premiere jcunesse, still hand some and distin(ju6 in appearance. Unfor tunately, the lady's eccentricities have been numerous and various for years past. About 18 months ago she was committed to Holloway for criminal libel. Her quarrels with M. Gounod (who once wrote an opera for her) have long been a public scandal, and only a few "weeks ago she figured at Bow-street, Police Court, where she was summoned to account for disturbing the harmony of tho proceedings at Covent Garden concerts. Mrs Weldon's suits against Mr Weldon have been interminable. This is tho last, The writer says : Sir James Hannen, tho President of the Court of Divorce, has recently been called Upon to ponder a very doubtful and delicate point of law as regards married couples who have not been able to preserve the " bonds of matrimony" unbroken. We have no desire to pass judgment on the rights and wrongs of tho unfortunate division which exists, as a matter of fact, between Mrs ■Weldon, the lady in question, and her hus band. Enough, that most people know, by ■what transpired in the courts of law, that Mr Weldon has lived for a long time apart from his wife ; that, the imputation of un soundness of mind having been brought against her, his energetic and restless con sort established her mectal sanity to the confusion of hostile doctors, and has since manifested unusual vigour in various legal and personal conflicts. We draw no inferences from such antecedents, which merely lead forward to the fact that the wife in the suit under remark recently brought an action against her husband for the restitution of conjugal rights, in which she obtained a decree from Sir James Han nen' affirming the validity of her claim, and : ordering tho husband to return to cohabita tion. Armed with the edict of the Court, she communicated its tenor and terms to her partner, who, after some delay, declared himself unprepared to resume married life with her, but proffered amicable arrange ments. This did not content Mrs Weldon, who promptly repaired anew to justice, and formally demanded of the Court that it should enforce its decree upon her recalci trant spouse. Thedecree had assuredly been promulgated; the defendant had palp ably declined to return to "bed and board ;" tho case of the petitioner seemed technically complete; and even the Judge excused himself for having dropped some observations upon the anomaly of thus enforcing wedded bliss, after the applicant sharply declared that nobody had any business to believe that she and her husband might not " live happy ever afterwards." When, however, tho lady's demand was again pressed, the counsel for Mr Weldon produced an affidavit from him embodying a proposition to supply his wife with a comfortable furnished house at at twenty pounds a month and two ser vants, at the same time continuing her * present allowance of five hundred pounds Ear annum. If one locality did not suit er fancy she might choose another, and Mr Inderwick argued that in the terms of the Act of Parliament sufficient compliance with aa order for restitution of conjugal rights was hereby made by the husband in so supplying his wife with a houso and with sufficient money to keep her, without being compelled to live under the same roof with her. Tho wife demurred. She did not want the house, she wanted her husband. She said "there never was any separation between them by deed or otherwise. He had deserted her, and in vindication of her own charactershe wished toborestored to the posi tion she formerly occupiodashis wife. Shehad got a decree which entitled her to bo re stored to that position, and what was the use of the law if auch decree could not be enforced?" In presence of the husband's offor and of the wife's ' rejection, Sir James Hannen took "time to consider," much against the inclinations of the feminine litigant, who demanded a summary de cision. The Judge had to pronounce upon thelegai point whether, over and above what the gentleman had promised in obedience to the Court, he was bound to live maritally under tho same roof with his obstinate con sort. It is for this decision that the ill-as sorted pair have been waiting, and with them, no doubt, a good many othor semi attached couples, as well, we may add, as the common sense and equity of the country at large. Tho President of the Divorce Court has now so interpreted the Act as to declare that tho utmost liberality on tho part of the hus band toward? the wifocannotexeuse himfrom personal domicileandassociationin presence of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Sir Jamea has decreed that the alienated " lord and master" must either resume the ties which he appears to find intolerable,orhe must bo attached for contempt and cast into prison. A fortnight's grace was significantly granted him by the reluctant and indulgent Court, anil the c?road fiat is nobl to issue if th& Judgo's order shall have been eventually complied with. It will be vain for the lady to urge against thecruelty of this alternative thatthere has been no cause fordiaagreoment, and that she on her side is prepared to render tho re-adjusted home an " earthly paradiso." The fact of tho husband's in superable repugnance too sadly and palpably forbids all prospect of happiness, and the wife has really offered him in court a molancholy choice betweon two captivi ties. At the Bridgo of Sighs, in Venice, Lord Byron founded a fine stanza upon the fact that lie had "apalace and a prison on each hand." The unfortunate hero of this curious case might.pen a mournful verso on the situation •which presents him with com pulsory felicity on the one side and com mittal to gaol on the other. Even if 'Sir James Hannen had held that conjugal rights had been sufficiently re stored when the sorely-pres«ed husband pro vides a homo, attendance, furniture, and an amplo income, withholding only him self, it would still bo painfully felt that some at leSst of these peace-offerings have been extracted by a decree based upon the theory that wedded love is an article, an item, a commodity, which by. our British law can bo called for in court and handed over to a claimant like lost property or ■title-deeds misappropriated. It would still seem dangerously plain to wives living ttpnrt from their husbands that, if a decree for restitution is not exactly a philtre to re store affection, it may at least be used as an - excellent means of putting the screw upon an estranged lord and master. Such con siderations bring us to the real point under lying this legal contention, which is, ■whether it bo not a manifest absurdity, a gross roversal of common sense and con jugal ethics, and an untenable survival o mediaeval ideas and theological doctrines to ordain by law the performance of duties which cannot be enforced, and which, i

hey could be, would degrade and defame eaually the one who exacted and the one vlio conceded them. In reality, therefore, he question reserved by the Judge for his lecision, andnow so alarmingly adjudicated, goes far deeper than a point of legal inter >retation. It bring, oefore the conscience if the law and the country a relic of the Scelesiastieal Courts belonging in simple ;ruth to by-gone days of exconimunica :ion by "bell, book, and candle," when marriage regarded as a changeless acrament, was maintained in ell its acts and consequences by secular and spiritual penalties, and hearts which would not beat together might be forcibly spitted nto one on the sword of Justice like those of lovers painted upon a Valentine. Is it consonant with the spirit of the age to pre» serve this mediaeval view ? Is nx rried love nore honoured or dishonoured when the aw treats it as a thing of which Judges can order the "delivery as per contract," and when a wife or a husband, unhappily and permanently estranged, will, as now, be compelled to choose between an association which is detested, or a contempt of court involving loss of liberty ? Without any further reference, therefore, to the unfortunate personal question in volved between the two parties in the suit under notice, and, of course, without the slightest wish to criticise unfavourably the conscientious decision of Sir James Hannen, we unhesitatingly affirm that, if our law really exercises so monstrous a tyranny over human affections, it will have to be altered. We say this in the interest of Justice itself, which is publicly weakened in strength and dignity by the attempt to insist* upon performances that cannot possibly be compelled. But we say it yet more emphatically in the interests of morality and of wedded peace and honour, Decause the essence of these true social blessings is natural attachment, and human ove becomes elevated above the association of the lower animals chiefly by the senti ments of mutual choice and voluntary con stancy. The appellant in the cause so severely decided put the case of a separated wife in its strongest light, perhaps, when she urged that, having done nothing to orfeit conjugal rights, she claimed them as i public tribute to her virtues, as well as a ;rophy of her legal victory. Yet even lerein the instinct of her sex would assuredly rise against her ; for what kind of virtue must that be considered which in the name of the marriago vow could bring it self to exact from a husband under menace manifestations of an impossible and.de parted affection ? The position of a wife similarly forced against her will into the intimate society of her lord will put this natter into a still clearer and more striking light. Force, in such a case—actual brutal violence—might, as is evident, be rendered -lot only possible, but probable and posi tively permitted, against the weaker of the separated partners, which sad contingency, in the instance of the .stronger, wauld, no doubt, be out of the question. In a word, so unnatural a right—asserted and techni cally affirmed, in the painful suit under dis cussion, and now by the mouth of an English Judge pronounced to be one which generosity cannot set aside, nor repugnance escape from—is, if looked at broadly and apart from individual considerations, a scandal and an anachronism. It ought not to remain part of the Snglish Code, but, since we now know ;hat it is tho law, and can be successfully nvoked, our Legislature should hasten to abolish a statutory absurdity which obliges a Court of Justice to command what it can not enforce, and permits an offended wife >r husband to extort in the sacred name of ove a personal concession which, when made, must be made in hatred, and, if re reived, will ba received in scorn, con tumely, and vindictiveness. ■

THE WHALLEY WILL CASE.

Tie History of a Stupendous Fraud.

[FROM OUR LONDON CORRESPONDENT],

The Whalley will case which has occupied a Judge and Jury for three weeks past is at last over, and romancistsha\ c before them

material for as sensational a novel as ever ,vas concocted by Miss Braddon or Boisgobey. The question which the Jury lad to decide was this : A stupendous iraud, involving the ownership of a vast fortune, had been committed either by plaintiff or defendant. Which was the sin ner? On the one hand, the plaintiff brought bis action to establish the fact that a forged will had been deliberately manu factured and supported by perjured testimony ,in order to secure at least a share in the large property, of which old Mr Whalley i died possessed on the spring of 1881. On the other, the de fendants turned desperately to bay and as serted through their counsel that the plain till and his- advisers were the real conspira tors who had not only suborned witnesses to prove their case, but had themselves forged the documents which most strongly sup ported it. Let us then consider the story— or rather a brief recapitulation of the lead ing features. In May, 18S1, Mr Whalley, an enormously wealthy iron-master, died at Leominster, in tho houso of a railway porter named Thomas, with whom he had been lodging for some time previous to his death. Mr Whalley was not on terms of intimacy with any of his relatives with the exception of two natural children, Henry Whalloy Priestman, the plaintiff in the present action, and his sister, Emma Priestman. Immediately after the old man's death a will was produced by Thomas, tho railway porter, and a wine merchant named; Gunnell, by which the latter waß nominated executor,; and the bulk of tho estate, amounting to between fifty and sixty thousand pounds, was left to Thomas. Henry Priestman, the plaintiff, took a legacy of five thousaud pounds, but no one else had any beneficial interest. The will -was promptly disputed in the Probate Court, but the proceedings terminated in a compromise, by which Thomas took seven teen thousand pounds. At this time it was not alleged that the will, which was dated the 21st of March, was forged, but another will was set up, under which Henry Priest man took the bulk of the property in the place of Thomas. The present action was brought to set aside this compromise, on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud; and (some of the evidence given to establish this fraud was of the most singular kind. In October, ISS2, it was discovered that the original will of the 21st of March,'which had been since tho old man's death in official custody, bore'upon it certain pencil marks. An examination ,by experts re vealed the fact that. some of this pencil writing was decipherable, and certain words wore visible, which were unquestionably either in the handwriting of Thomas, or a very good imitation of. it.. Tho witnesses to the will wero two men named .Nash and Eees, the latter of whom madda confession in tho witness-box which showen, if true, that a most remarkable fraud had been com' mitted. It was alleged that a letter had been written in pencil by Thomas, at tho dictation of Whalley, to Henry Priestman, to which the old man had bonafide affixed his signature; that this letter had been re tained by Thomas, instead of sending it,

that tho pencil writing had then been rubbed out; and that a spurious will had been written in by Nash (who had been a solici :or's clerk) above the old man's signature, the other attesting witness, Rees, being, of course, a party to tho plot. The real will of Mr Whalley, it was alleged, gave his property to the plaintiff, his natural son; and in support of this theory not only in dk-ect expressions by the old man before and after the date of tho forged will were ■elied on, but a letter written by him to Smma Priestman on the 19th of April was jroduced, in which the deceased unequivo cally declared he had so dealt with his property. That this letter was not forthcoming until late in the litigation was accounted for by the tact that t contained a reference to a secret of a pain :ul kind, known only to Miss Emma Priestman and the deceased, to which she was extremely relucant to give publicity. The answer made by the defendants to the case thus set up was bold, and, indeed, des perate. It was said that Rees had been bought over to invent or support the story, and that attempts had been made to suborn Nash in the same way; that the letter of the 19th of April had been deliberately forged with the same object; and that it had not been forthcoming at an earlier date simply because it was not then in existence. The pencil marks on the will were dealt with inthesame manner. The plaintiff's witnesses had explained their presence by alleging that the erasure of pencil writing by broad or india-rubber is generally imperfect, and consists in great part of merely roughening the surface filaments of the paper, so as to hide the marks. It was said that in time these displaced filamonts have a tendency to re-straighten themselves, and recover jthe original surface, and that this had taken place during the seventeen months that the will was in official custody. The defendant :ould not deny that the pencil marks were :here, because they were visible to the naked sye ; nor could he dispute that they appeared :o be in his handwriting ; but his counsel suggested that they had been artificially placed on the will by transferring them :rom another piece of paper during an in spection either at the Hereford Registry, or at Somerset House. Witnesses were called to prove that this was possible ; and was a conflict of expert testimony as to whether the surface of the paper was more in accordance with this theory or with the case for the plaintiff. The maxim, "litera scripta nianet,' was perhaps never more strangely illustrated. Even this ex traordinary dispute, however, would not liave prolonged the case over so many days had it _ not been for the necessity of mi nutely investigating the negotiations which had ended in detaching Rees from the party of the defendant, and which were said to have had the same effect at one time upon Nash. It was beyond question that some promise of money, or, as it was put by Nash himself, of" a handsome present," had been mad«by Thomas to both these men, and it was- sug gested that the split in the camp had been caused by his failure to keep his word. Here again the defendants retaliated and accused the plaintiff and his solicitor of offering these men pecuniary bribes to invent and support the story of the plot. The whole case, in short, reeked with conspiracy and fraud of the grossest kind; but the jury found no difficulty in deciding that the accusations made by the plaintiff were true, and that Thomas and Nash were the guilty parties. Of Gunnell, the execu tor, it is not necessaty to say more than that the evidence given in the cause div not demonstrate his complicity in the plot, and that no question effecting him per sonally was left to the jury. That the main issue in the case was rightly decided there can be no doubt. It was almost admitted by the defendant's counsel that if the letter from Mr Whalley to his daughter on the 19th of April were genuine, there was an end of the case. It,is difficult to conceive any reason which should have induce d Preistman and his sister to forge such a letter, giving needles publicity to an en tirely irrelevant secret of a painful character when it would hare been equally easy to have concocted a document without any reference of the sort. There were other letters of old Mr Whalley, admittedly genuine, and admittedly written after the date of the supposed will, quite inconsistent with its contents ; and that Thomas and Nash, to say nothing of Rees, were guilty of forgery and conspiracy was demon strated as clearly as can be expected or required in a Civil Court. Such was the verdict of the Jury, with which the Judge expressed his entire concurrence ; and even in the face of {the strong proba bility that criminal proceedings will follow the result of the present action, it . would be affectation to ignore the truth. Fven the civil litigation is not yet over, inasmuch as it will still be neces sary to revoke the probate of the forged will,, which was obtained as part of the conpromisG in 18S2. That will follow as a matter of course ; and Thomas with his confederates, will find that they have, like so many conspirators before them, steeped themselves to the lips in perjury in vain.

A JEALOUS HUSBAND.

[FROM TnE FRENCH OF ALBERTO SECORI},}

It was the day before the shooting reason began. Hunters were pouring out of Paris in all directions. Two might, have been seen leisurely proceeding toward the Sceaux station, but coming from different direc tions. Both were accoutred elegantly, from jaunty cap to leathern gaiters;•• both carried a fine gun and a handsome game-bag; both remarked with satisfaction the effect their costumes produced upon the female hearts; in short, both were Parisians and hunters. Full sixty years must have been' needed to grizzle the locks of the one ; but twenty three had passed over the other's head. Tho elder reached the station a few momenta before the other. Ho entered an empty compartment, but scarcely had he done so when the door opened and the younger hunter entered. They stared,at each other for a moment, but it was the elder who spoke first. • .■...,,.' "My dear Boisgibert, I am delighted to see you," he said, pressing the other's hand with simulated warmth. •••• i -• "And I, too, Prethibaut," returned the young man, "am enchanted; What i3 it lhingummy says now?: ;'Thrice blessed is it— 1" • ' : " Perhaps you mean ' Thrice blessed is't to meet afriendly face,'" replied the other. Yes, that's it. Who was the fellow that said it now ? It was—it was-— -" ..'.. "Lamartine?" asked the other, dryly. ' Ah, yes, that's the man—Lamartine. btrange I couldn't think.of it.?' '-•■-,. ". t ~:" erJ''" replied Prethibaut,. ',' But, now i think out, De Musset was the author of the line. "Yes, so he was," replied the other;' colouring; 'he's one ofrtmy favourite authors, you know." fe:- Outwardly Prethibaut replied with a grun *J" yardly he saidt "The aame as ever. What an ass the fellow is." !

On the other hand, Boisgibert bit his lip and muttered: "Confound the old fool! as pedantic s over." These two/ cntlemen were just about to make a reason bly long railway journey to gether.

Afteralengthj "ilence, Prethibaut began : "I see you are n hunting rig. May I ask you where you ie bound?" "Yea; I am goi.ig to Verrieres. Fine shooting at that chateau." "What! Has Vaugiron invited ," Prethibaut interrupted, but suddenly stopped. " Yes, Vaugiron has asked me to come down to Verrieres and open the hunting season with him; And you—where are you going, Prethibaut ?" "To Vorrierea." "What! You also?" Boisgibert's tone expressed astonishment, but certainly not pleasure. " Oh, yes. For ten years I have opened the season there. It wouldn't do for me to miss one." "How fortunate we chanced to meet !" said Boisgibert, in a tone as destitute of emotion as is the creak of a door. " It was indeed a happy chance," replied Prethibaut, with the inflection of a man who bids his creditor come to-morrow. And while their lips distilled honbyed word 3 they were full of bitterness within. Prethibaut's reflections were something like this : . . ' " How, in the gend's name, could Vaugiron be so idiotic as tn invite this be curled popinjay to his house? I did not think him so stupid—so husbandlike, so to speak, as that. When a man of 52 marries a girl of 19 he should not invite handsome young dandies to spend weeks at his house. And, more particularly, should he not in vite a dandy who was her slave last winter ; who was always waltzing with her; who always turned her music for her when she played ; who always had an orchestra seat when she was in her box. And yet Vaugiron—etupid yet hospitable Vaugiron —he invites this fellow beneath his roof. Well, well !" On the other hand, Boisgibert's brain was no less busy. His reflections ran something like this: " I wonder why that old blockhead fol lows ma so persistently? For the past year he seems to have exercised a sort of espionage on me; He seems to hayo divined my secret, too. And yet he is not a relative of Mme. Vaugiron. Confound the old idiot! Some one told me he was in Switzerland, and here I find him on the way to Verri eres !" The two men scowled at each other, and then smoothed their face.3 into expression lessness. The train rolled on. Boisgibert drew an immense cigar from the case and lighted it. Then, as if he had just thought of it:' "Oh, excuse me; I believe tobacco is disagreeable to you." '' NOi sir, by no ■ means, sir; you are dreaming, sir," retorted Prethibaut. "I smoke like a chimney, sir :" and, lighting a larger cigar, he puffed defiantly. ° At the expiration of ten-minutes the two gentlemen were so shrouded in smoke that they could not see across the compartment. But all things hare an end. The train at last reached the expected fetation, and there was Vaugiron's carriage awaiting them. A brisk drive of a few minutes across the country and they were at Verrieres. Aa they descended in the courtyard Vaugiron advanced. He pressed Prethi baut warmly by the hand, greeted Boisgi bert with less warmth, and bade the servant to show the latter gentleman to his room. ■ " As for you, my old friend," said he to Prethibaut, "come into the garden and lefc us seat ourselves over there in that summer house. I have something! want to say to you. I want to ask your advice." " But will you follow i* ?" | " Of course, since I ask it." " But that does not follow any more than you do. People are always asking advice ; they rarely follow it. Last year, in this very month, and where we now sit, you asked my opinion as to whether you should marry. I advised .you to live and die a bachelor. Well, three months after that I had to-pretend: to be glad, when I saw you hanged—l mean married." Vaugiron vigorously kicked a pebble on the gravel-walk before him. / " Well, what is.it about, Prethibaut,?" Vaugiron paused for a while. "Well," said he, reluctantly, "it's-about my wife." '' What ?'! said Prethibaut, '' already,! " "Come," said. Vaugiron, impatiently, "don't be getting any idiotic ideas into, your head. I have nothing to reproach her with." . " But yon have something on your mind?" "Yes, I.have. ■ I am jealous." " Of Maurice Boisgibert ?". '' How. do you know ?" *' I know, because I have seen "

"Seen!" shouted A raugiron, bounding from his seat. ".Seen ! seen ? What have you seen ?" „ "Come, now," said Prethibaut, "don'tbe getting, any idiotip ideas into .your head. I have seen nothing, alarming. I have 3een, however,-that that young puppy, floisgi berfc, is: altogether too attentive, to your Wife.", -~'...;■ ,';;,'", f| ; ..,.'..'-.' || ! '?,;, , :.". \Vell,, that's what I wanted to speak about. The .fellow has presumed to; ad drees some verses to.her.". ".!., ..'."• ', '~,.,. " What are they about ?": •■ ~. ' ~., "What are they about? Oh, what all poets, write about—moon . on,, the waves,. stars and.flowers, gentle zephyrs, angels, gondolas, sympathetic souls, and all sorts of idiotic things." .','"' '"" "Naturally," said Prethibaut," I might have known it. But, how did you come to see this letter ?".,'". " Why, Hortense brought it to me her-' self, of course," ;. ■ '■ "She did, eh? Well, Vaugiron, I con gratulate you on your wife. Now; listen to me. Will yon follow my advice 1" "Blindly.^ l;. ' ' - ■ "Whatever I;may say or do,, you will not contradict or oppose ?." . : "I promise.": : '- "Very well, then. Young Boisgibert will not favour ua irith his' company during the shooting season. Here is what you must do : To-night at dinner1 when you Bee me take a pinch of snuff strike the table with your fist and say in a cavernous voice: " I would do the same.'" "' "■ ' ' "Hum," said Vaugiron. "'"A cavernous Toice, a pinch of snuff, and. a blow 6n 'the table. Wby—what-rhow-— ■"' '/'• i ''■'- '"STeyer'tnincf," said 'Prethibaut; "do as I tell \fti\\, old boy; and you're all right." :i '• ' ' ..'•• ■ "•■';.'' '_:.[•./■ V ' ;:: i" Thafcevening there were gathered around Vaugiron'a festive' board eight, gentlemen. Sir vacant chai's showed ttiat. the ladiei harf left them. XJnnvimljered emp^y- bottles • showed that, they were good hunters and true.,>.; But t one man . had attempted, to escape jto.joiii the.ladies. Several times hod Boisgibert made amove, but Preth'ibaut would invariably ask,, withjinuch kindness: "Are you notjrell this evening, siri?" so he was forced to'remain^ . , . .. j'~ / Of all .the merry.crowd, Prethibaut'alone seemed pre-occupied., There was a gloomy expression , upon hia'.face,- and, it finally attracted attention^ . , ,'■,:■ i '.'What's the matter;-.with 5Pu .to-night, Prethibaut ?" asked one of the guests, " you look as if you were at a;funer.al.."..; : >

"Pardon mo, gentlemen," replied the gloomy one, "thereare c^.i i-°'n anniversaries in a man's life ; but no, the ,tory is not a pleasant one." " Never mind— what's tho odds? Go on and tell it anyway," was the cry. " Very woll, gentlemen," said Prothibaut, placing his snufT-box on the tablo before him, and gazing on it with a deop melan choly. " I will tell you tho story. Thirty five years ago to-day I was tho chief actor in a domestic tragedy." "You?" interrupted Vaugiron, "you in a domestic tragedy ?". For reply Prethibaut ignored his friend with a violent kick under the table and went on. "At that time I was but 25 ; my life was peaceful and happy. I had a wife whom I adored, a daughter whom I idolised." " What, you I" bawled Vaugiron. "Yes," went on Prethibaut, giving him another kick; "my estate was in the Ardennes, and I was a passionate hunter. Adjoining my property was that of a man a little younger than. I. He was about the same age ag Maurice Boisgibert here, and, by the way, he much resembles him. Woll, we often met; we became friends. He came to my house, and—excuse me, gentlemen, but my old blood boils when I think of it—ho wrote some verses to my wife. " Well, I sought him out. I told him that one of us must die ; that, in order to avoid scandal, we would load our pieces with buckshot, cojiceal ourselves on both sides of a trail, and when a boar was driven by us, we would fire, but not at tho boar. "It was done. Thirty-five years ago to day we lay crouched there, glaring at each other across the trail. We heard the boar coming; wefired. Whether a consciousness of guilt had unnerved my friend's hand or not, I do not know, yet I was uninjured. But both loads of my cun struck him, and he fell back, his head and breast pierced with balls, a mangled, bleeding corpse. There is not much more to tell. I was arrested and released, as on the surface it was accidental. My wife died in a mad house, my daughter died shortly after, and now lam alone. Can you wonder, gentle men, that I am melancholy when the years bring around the day on which I slew my friend I" He shook hfe head gloomily and took a pinch of Buirff. Vaugiron struck the table a violent blow, which made the glasses ring. " I would do the same," he cried. "You were perfectly right. I would do the same." At breakfast the next morning it was noticed that Maurice Boisgibert was absent. The host found a note from him at his plate, however, which was read aloud : " Boisgibert has received a letter, which forces him to leave for Paris at onco. Im portant business. Ho begs M. Vaugiron to receive his excuses, and much regrets that ho cannot remain with the pleasant party at Chateau de Verrieres." " Well," said Prethibaut, in a whisper to the host, " what did I tell you ?" "Prethibaut," replied Vaugiron, with an admiring glance, " what a dreadful liar you are !"

Another Enoch Arden.

A somewhat remarkable case of the " Enoch Arden" type is reported by the " Western Morning News " to have just occurred at Kingsbridge. Some years ago a young -woman of Kingsbridge was married to a sailor named Lucraft. In due course Lucraft want to sea, and from that time his wife saw him no more. It was credibly reported that her husband had been drowned, and as there appeared to be no reason to doubt the accuracy of this information, Sirs Lucraft was regarded in the town, and, indeed, regarded herself, as. a widow. She remained in a state of single blessedness for some time, but was eventually wooed and won by a tradesman in the town named Burner. Neither was aware of any obstacle to their union ; it was taken for granted that the story of Lucraft's death was a perfectly trustworthy story, and a short time since Mrs Lucraft became Mrs Burner. But a few days ago a stranger appeared in the town, and calling upon the Kingsbridge tradesman, revealed to him the fact that he was the sailor Lucraft. It was Jack Robin son's case— r" he ■ hadn't been doad at all." Little or nothing is known of the sub sequent conversation that took place between the two husbands of the one wife, but it was probably of an amicable and ,friendly character,' for rumour has it that Lucraft shortly afterwards left the town, and that Burner remains in quiet possession of his wife.

Our Athlete's Verdict.

BICYCUNQ.

Jorix Holfe, Es<(., champion bicyclist of Eng land and Australia, -who at present is open to run a long-distanco race with any bicyclist for the championship of tho world, gives his per sonal experience of tbe valuable properties of St. Jacob's Oil. as used by him in his recent contest with Jno. Watson for the championship of Australia ■ / ■.. * ■ ' ' <• 2GB, Elisabeth-street North, 1 ..- • 'j«;i .-..-. Melbourne, Victoria. .•-..,..,. : 23rd Novomber, 1883. .; To the Editor Auckland Evening Star. : Dear Sir, —I desiro to add ray cheerful endorse ment of tho good eflbcts Ihavo at all times re ceived from the use of St. Jacob's Oil when in active training and racing. During my recent 6 days' contest held in the Melbourne Exhibi tion Building for £500 and tho championship of tile Australian and adjacent colonies, it -was my boon companion. I continually used it boforo and after each day's performance, and the re sults simply astonished mo. After riding for 8 consecutiro hours eaoh day, viz., from half-past 2 until half-past 10, my limbs would become sore and stiff from over-exertion, but after being well-rubbed with tho oil all muscular pain immediately vanished and I felt as fresh as ever. As proof positive.after the contest waa over, I rode lOu miles against time before a pub lic audience and accomplished it in 6 hours 11 minutes 45J seconder. ■ Another application of St. Jacob's Oil was made, and it removed all feel ings of fatigue and I felt perfectly fit for another race. Am positive it aided me to win the match and X shall never enter a. similar contost without a bioycle and St. Jacob's Oil. I strongly advise all " wheelmen " and other athletes to give, it a trial, and feel fully con vinced thoir experiences will compare favour ,ably with my own. I remain, dear Sir. ■ ■ .... Yours truly, ■ -.-■, . . . John Rolfe. ..'" CRICKET. DAVID SCOTT, Esq.. of tho firm of Messrs Boyle and Scott, Cricket and Football Depot Melbourne, Victoria "St Jacob's Oil re ■. lieved meat once o£ pain... 1 command it to all footballers and cricketers." .'; ; . . "•'■ 5 . , AQUATICS.; EDWARD TRICKETT. Esq., one of the world's greatest oarsmen.—'' I have found St. Jacob s Oil a sure and certain cure."

' : genuineness guaranteed. \ st. jagob's oil conquers pain. it' cubes rheumatism, neuralgi \ headache, toothache, back ache, and all similar ailments.. A cash reword of £100 will be paid by thn CHARLES A. VOGELER COMPANY ofBAL° TIMORE MARYLAND, UNITED STATES of AJVIERICA, Proprietors o£ St Jacob's Oil or by their accredited local representatives to JL£?'t poJ!aOll prwiucing proof to the offect that the testimonials published by thorn in regard to. St. Jacob s Oil are not striotly genuins. "Wholesale Depot : M. LEVY AND COMPANy, AUCKLAKn

STAR SATURDAY SUPPLEMENT, JANUARY 19, 1884

6