Russell v Russell

Die Veneris, 30° Maii, 1924.

After hearing Counsel as well on Thursday
the 20th as Friday the 21st, Monday the 24th,
and Tuesday the 25th, days of March last, upon
the Petition and Appeal of Christabel Hulme
Russell, wife of the Honourable John Hugo
Russell, of 46D, Harrington Gardens, in the
County of London, praying, That the matter of
the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto,
namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of
Appeal, of the 24th of July 1923, might be
reviewed before His Majesty the King in His
Court of Parliament, and that the said Order
might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that
the Petitioner might have such other relief in
the premises as to His Majesty the King in His
Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also
upon the printed Case of the Honourable John
Hugo Russell, lodged in answer to the said Appeal;
and due consideration had this day of what was
offered on either side in this Cause :

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords
Spititual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament
of His Majesty the King assembled, That the
said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of
the 24th day of July 1923, complained of in the
said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Reversed,
and that the Verdict and Judgment be set aside :
And it is further Ordered, That the Respondent do
pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Appellant
the Costs incurred by her in the Court of Appeal
and also the Costs incurred by her in this House,
so far as regards the question of the admissibility
of the evidence : And it is further Ordered, That
the Appellant do pay, or cause to be paid, to the
said Respondent the Costs incurred by him in the
Court of Appeal and in this House, so far as
regards the questions of misdirection and verdict
against the weight of the evidence, such Costs
to be set off, and the amount of the respective
Costs in this House to be certified by the Clerk
of the Parliaments : And it is also further Ordered,
That the Cause be, and the same is hereby,
remitted back to the Probate, Divorce and
Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice,
to do therein as shall be just and consistent with
this Judgment.

Russell v, Russell.

Earl of
Birkenhead.

Viscount
Finlay.

Lord
Dunedin.

Lord

Sumner.

Lord
Carson.

sess. 1924—[h.l.]

RUSSELL

v.
RUSSELL.

The Earl of Birkenhead.

MY LORDS,

this long drawn-out litigation has been so much reduced
in the course of its passage through the Courts that only one main
issue, and that of law, survives.