A matrimonial case of curious interest recently came before the courts. It was an almost unique instance of the length a woman will go, on the force of an impulse. The President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, described the facts as “extraordinary.” So, in truth, they were. On February 4th, 1910, a married woman named Dean set out for Olympia, with her sister, Mrs. Smith. They were accompanied by a male acquaintance of Mrs. Smith. It was adduced by the evidence that the husband of Mrs. Smith objected to the “male acquaintance” referred to. Mr. Smith, a commercial traveller, discussed the matter with his wife on the following day. It has since been alleged that there was a scene, in the middle of which Smith threatened his wife with divorce proceedings and divers other ills. Mrs. Smith was naturally very much agitated and appealed to her sister, Mrs. Dean, for a solution of the difficulty. The latter proved herself to be a woman of ready resource, for she replied, “I will say I have misconducted myself with Henry!” (“Henry” was Mrs. Smith’s husband.) Mrs. Smith was very grateful, indeed, and asked her sister whether it would be all right. Mrs. Dean reassured her on this point, and the “plot” was complete. It was then agreed that Mrs. Smith should communicate the fact of his wife’s adultery to Mr. Dean. The upshot of it all was that Mrs. Smith telephoned Dean, without further delay. It was under these circumstances that at an interview, soon afterwards, Mrs. Dean confessed to her husband that she had in fact committed adultery with her brother-in-law, Henry Smith. She, however, refused to put her admission into writing. On February 7th, in the presence of other persons, her mother, sister, etc., Mrs. Dean told her husband that the whole incident was a concoction on her part, and that there was no truth whatever in the recent “confession.” Dean refused to believe her and took steps to petition for divorce. In answer to the judge, at the hearing, Mrs. Dean said that her sister had never believed the confession, and had never accused her of having misconducted herself with Smith. When the co-respondent, Smith, went into the witness-box, he said that he had hardly treated the question seriously. He had heard about the plot sometime in February, and he then and there told his wife and her sister that they must have been mad to have conceived such a thing. The petitioner, Dean, informed the court that he had never known anything about the plot until that day. In the result, the jury found that there had been no misconduct, and the petition was dismissed, with costs.