The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-07-10 00:00:00

THE ANNIVERSARY OF AMERICAN
INDEPENDENCE.

A demonstration of supposed sympathisers with the
Fenian movement, under the superintendence of the
Fenian Amnesty Committee, took place on Sunday
morning, in London, the ostensible object being to
" celebrate the anniversary of the declaration of
American independence, July 4." It had been arranged
by the committee of management that the demonstra-
tion should take the form of a monster excursion to
the Rye House in vans, with music and flags, and that
during the day a meeting should be held in the grounds.
Accordingly the necessary arrangements were entered
into with Mr. Teale, the proprietor of the Rye House,
but the real or supposed objects of the demonstration
becoming known the attention of the Hertford magis-
trates was called to the fact. The police authorities
were communicated with, and the result was that Mr.
Teale declined to receive the excursionists on his pre-
mises. On this being made known to the committee
they at once resolved to change the locale of the ex-
cursion to High Beach, a place of resort to excursion-
ists in Essex, a few miles from Loughton. Finsbury-
square was selected as the place of rendezvous, and by
nine o'clock on Sunday morning about a dozen vans, se-
veral omnibuses, and private vehicles were congregated
in the square, together with a great mass of people,
about 2,000 in number. The large majority of the
crowd were Irish artisans and labourers, and nearly all
wore a piece of green ribbon affixed to some portion of
their dress. Their undisguised expressions of opinions
in face of the presence of a number of police, both in
uniform and private clothes, proclaimed their Fenian
proclivities. Arrived at their destination, during the
afternoon a public meeting of the excursionists was
held, at which speeches appropriate to the occasion
were made' and a memorial agreed to praying for the
release of the Fenian prisoners. Early in the morn-
ing a body of police had been dispatched to Rye House
to preserve order, the change in the locality not then
being publicly known.

ived

"SHEDDEN AND ANOTHER v. THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL."
The arguments on behalf of the appellants in the above
case, after occupying their Lordships for about 25 days,
were at length concluded on Monday afternoon in the House of
Lords The appeal was brought to reverse a decree pro-
nounced uy the Full Court for Divorce and Matrimonial
Causes, on the 27th of November, 1860, in a cause instituted
by the appellants under the "Legitimacy Declaration Act,
1058
The appellants, William Patrick Ralston Shedden
and Annabella Jean Ralston Shedden appeared in
person; and Mr. Mellish, Mr. J. Powell, and Mr.
Ashley for the respondents.
The question raised in this cage was whether Wil-
liam Shedden and Ann Wilson, the parents of the first.
named appellant, were lawfully married in the State
of New York according to the law of that State before
the date of his birth, and consequently whether he was
or was not their legitimate son. The appellants con-
tended that the parties had been lawfully married ac-
cording to the common law, of New York before the
birth of the appellant, William Shedden, and that the
ecclesiastical marriage relied upon by the respondents
was only a second marriage between the same parties.
Tha respondents, on the other hand, contended that
the parties in question were not married until the
7th of November, a few days before the death of
William Shedden the elder, when a marriage cere-
mony was performed between them by the rector of
Trinity Church, New York, according to the forms
of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The appellants
called evidence in the court below to prove that
by the law of the State of New York marriage is a
mere civil contract, and that neither any form or cere-
mony, nor the ministration of any clergyman or magis-
trate, nor the presence of any witnesses is necessary to
constitute a legal and valid marriage; mutual agree-
ment per verbs ds prosenti to be husband and wife be.
tween two persons subject to no impediment, and fol-
lowed by cohabitation, constituting a binding marriage.
Moreover, by the law of that State, according to the
appellants, express and direct proof of such mutual
agreement is unnecessary, as the agreement and binding
contract of marriage can be inferred from the cohabi-
tation of the parties as man and wife, from their ac-
knowledgments or acts, from general reputation, or
from any other circumstances tending to show the re-
lation between them; indirect evidence of that sort,
though capable of being rebutted, being sufficient, no
presumption arising from the fact of a subsequent
marriage in facie ecclesic being permitted to rebut the
presumption raised by such evidence. The appellants
urther adduced evidence to prove that the absence

of record or of documentary evidence of marriages
and baptisms under the usages which have always.
obtained on this subject in the State of Near
York is no weight for, according to the practice
prevailing in the State, the parties never see to the
entry in any books or records of these events, magis-
trates seldom make entries of them, clergymen do not
do so with any uniformity, and the books themselves
which the latter do sometimes keep are rarely trans-
mitted to successors or preserved with care. They
further sought to prove that until the year 1830 certifi-
cates or entries from registers of marriages and bap-
tisms were not admitted in evidence by the courts of
law in that State, on the ground that there was no law
or usage requiring.such entries to be made, or render-
ing them adtuissable as lawful proof of the events
recorded. On the 9th of November, DIGO, the case
came on for hearing before the Full Court for Divorce
and Matrimonial Causes, when the arguments, which
Miss Shedden principally conducted in person, lasted
fourteen days. On the 27th of November of the same
year the Court delivered its judgment, and pronounced
that the parties in question had not been lawfully
married prior to the birth of the appellant William
Shedden, who was therefore not their legitimate son.
In February, ISt'il, an application for s new trial and
rehearing of the cause before a jury was made to the
Court below, which was ultimately refused. Against
these decisions the present appeal was brought.
Miss Shedden, during the twenty-three days she
argued the case before their Lordships, contended that
there should have been an issue directed to be tried
laore a jury; that whether the Judges of the Court
below were right or wrong in refusing to direct such an
issue to be tried, they were wrong in the conclusions
they had arrived at upon the evidence before them;
that had improperly rejected and had improperly
roce certain evidence; that fresh evidence had
come to light since the judgment was pronounced in
the Court below which entitled the appellants to a new
trial; and, finally, that the appellants were entitled to
another opportunity of rebutting certain evidence which
had come upon them by surprise at the bearing below.
During the course of her address Miss Shedden was
wicasionally complimented by their Lordships upon
the ability she displayed in dealing with the various
points in the case, but far more frequently she was
severely rebuked for wasting the time of the House by
endless repetitions, and by entering into matters irre-
levant to the questions their Lordships had to decide.
The whole of Friday and of Monday morning was
occupied by Mr. Shedden.
In the course of Monday morning, Lord Chelmsford
remarked that it appeared to be the object of Mr.
Shedden and his daughter to keep themselves before
the public as long as they could, regardless of anything
else.
Mr. Shedden said he was going through the case as
rapidly as he could.
Lord Chelmsford : Pray don't use the word rapidly;
it is almost an insult to the House for you to do so.
You and your daughter have occupied 25 days in
arguing your case.
Mr. Shedden remarked that, had his daughter not
been so frequently checked by their Lordships, she
would not have occupied so much of their time.
When the usual time for the adjournment for lunch
arrived, the Lord Chancellor interrupted Mr. Shedden,
and said: The painful time has now come when we
must declare the arguments on behalf of the appellants
to be finished. We have told you, over and over again,
that mere declamation is not argument. When you
do attempt to argue a point, we merely get a repetition
of your (laughter's speech. You are only making us
forget what we have already heard, and it is extremely
painful for us to listen to you.
Mr. Shedden said that it was utterly impossible for
the ablest counsel in London to have argued a case of
so much complexity and difficulty ins shorter time than
he had occupied. He entreated their Lordships to give
him another half-hour.
The Lord Chancellor: Mr. Shedden, you have already
sPoken for six or seven hours, and during the whole of
that period you have not brought forward a single new
fact or argument. We have all the points in the case
fully before us. Some of these points are of more im-
portance than others, but they will all have our full
consideration before we state whether or not we think
it right to hear the learned counsel who appear on the
other side. Of our determination upon this point you
will be informed in due time. Had we not been fully
satisfied from the course you have adopted that you
had not a single further important observation to make
we should not have adopted the extreme course of
stopping you.
The further hearing was then adjourned sine die.