On Friday, May 80th, the House of Lords, by three
votes to two, allowed the appeal of Mrs. John Russell. The result of this decision is that she remains legally the wife of Mr. John Russell, and that the child born in 1921 is legally recognized as the child of that marriage. In the trial, the result of which has now been reversed, the jury found that though Mrs. Russell had not com- mitted adultery with the co-respondent named, she had committed adultery with some unknown man, and a decree nisi was granted. Mrs. Russell appealed, and last July the Court of Appeal upheld the verdict. The House of Lords has now upset that decision. The essential legal principle involved was whether the evidence of married people living together is admissible as to the relations between them when such evidence might render a child born during their marriage a bastard. Lord Birkenhead definitely stated that such evidence could not be admitted. Lord Finlay and Lord Dunedin agreed with him, but Lord Sumner and Lord Carson dissented. The judgment of the majority accords with the rule of Lord Mansfield in 1777.
* *
Previous page
