The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1861-07-23 00:00:00

Ltgal.

Till Y ILVILITON CASE— This was taken up on
Tuesday by the First Division of the Court of Session
on the cross appeals arising out of the proof taken by
the Commissioner in the suit, at Mrs. Yelverton's
instance, to establish the Scotch marriage. The
pursuer (Theresa Longworth or Yelverton) appeals
against certain parts of the judgment of the Lord
Ordinary (Ardmillaio), excluding her own evidence on
the ground that the evidence of the parties themselves
is not adiuissible in C,onaistorial causes; and the
defender appeals on the ground that the principle of
exclusion ought to have applied to certain parts of the
testunony which have been admitted; and also that
certain documentary evidence which the Lord Ordinary
refused should be received. Mr. 0. Smith, for the
pursuer, maintained that she should be allowed to
prove from her own statements at the time that she
was living with Major Yelverton as his wife, all that
evidthoelgoing to prove the understanding between them
at the time, and therefore valuable evidence in estab-
lishing a habit and repute marriage. Mr. Watson,
for the defender, claimed the admission of letters of
the major's now deceased brother, who was sent to
negotiate with the pursuer after the defender's marriage
with Mrs. Forbes. He also wanted to trace the certifi-
elite shown by the pursuer or by Father Mooney to
the Bishop before leave wss granted to celebrate the
Irish marriage. The defender wanted to show that
that was a fictitious doeumecit, for there could be no
certificate of the Smith marriage, alleged to be con-
stituted by habit and repute. The Lord President
remarked that counsel bed not stated what kind
of marriage and "'Mode it was. It might have
been a certificate of her parents' marriage exhibited in
order to show who she was. Mr. P. Fraser, in reply
for the pursuer, claimed the opportunity to prove the
feet of the destruction by the defender of several of his
own letters in an inn in Ireland, which could only be
moved by the pursuer's own evidence, the defender
having denied it on oath. As to the alleged certificate,
It was a total delusion of the Bishop's, for there never
was such a thing as this certificate. The Insinuation
was that the certificate was • forgery, and of all Major
Yelvorton's bad conduct towards the pursuer nothing
had been worm than this. Mr. E. S. Gordon, for the
defender, objected to the pursuer's testimony as to the
alleged destruction of letters being received, such mi.
' Atha being utterly incompetent. As to the certificate,
' he held that they were entitled to trace it, and ques-
' lion the Bishop on the subject. The Lord President
said they should ask the pursuer as a " haver° for it,
and then they should have laid a foundation for further
inquiry. Mr. Gordon thought they were entitled to
SIMIll04) the Bishop without applying to the pursuer for
I it. Judgment was deferred.

THE CASE OF THE HEY. ME. BONWELL.

DOWNZLL (CLINE), ATTILLANT, TIN 111110? 01 LONDON,

I[I.II.OIIDIXT.-jUDIJKINT.

Sir John Coleridge on Thursday morning delivered
the judgment of their lordships in this cue, which bad
been argued for three days during the meant sittings
by the appellant, who appeared in forum pauperie ; and
üby the een's Advocate and Dr. Tristram, on behalf
of the Bishop of London, when judgment was reserved.
Sir John Coleridge, in giving judgment, said this was
an appeal by the Rev. James Bone ell, perpetual curate
of the church and perpetual curacy of St. Philip,
ray, the county of Middlesex and in the diocese
don, against the Bishop of London, from a judg-
ment pronounced in the Arches Court of Canterbury.
The suit had come before that court In virtue of letters
of request from the Bishop of London against the
respondent, under the Church Discipline Act, on the
charge that he had admitted or caused to be received
into • room attached to the Wuxi of St. Philip,
Stepney, an unmarried female, named Elizabeth Tomtit,
then far advanced iniregnancy, and that she was there
delivered of an ille timste child ; and also In relation
to the burial of at child, and in respect of Mr.
Bonwell's having to conducted himself as to canoe it to
be generally believed that be was the father of the child,
and that he had committed adultery with Elissbeth
Tors& Complaint having been made to the bishop,
he hued a commission under the 3rd and 4th Vie.
sk and the commlasioners having sal and Komi
=on behalf of the prosecutor and of the present
int, they decided there was prima feels grounds
for farther proceedings. Letters of request MOO after-
wards presented to the Dean of Arches and a citation
inesed. In June articles were put in, and on the negative
With raised by the present appellant the case came on
hr bearing, when evidence having been taken the
bawd judge of the court below (Dr. loshington)
=la sentence depriving Mr. Boswell of his
nd condemning bun n costs. From that
gantese; Mr. Bonwell had appealed to their lordships
praying theta to recommend to -Her Majesty in Council
In reverse the sentence of the court below. He had
. eestanded in the Snit instance that the conimisviours
*mild only have taken cognisance of what had occurred
within the diocese of London, and that they should not
have entered into matters not so within it, and, there
Vera, that DO articles could be founded on that evidence.
Bat here the quesition was whether an offence
was committed which caused • scandal in London; and
it could not be maintained that the evidence of what had
occurred in another diocese, but having an immediate
bluing on the charge, as it related to the diocese of
Leaden, as not receivable. Then it bad been con-
=a:hat the sentence was invalid through the
ty of the proceedings, bismuth as the
sentence of deprivatioe hid been pronounced by the
Dean of Arches, and not by the hialsop of the diocese
• which the offending clergyman held his benefice.
Boswell bad not shown—and, indeed, he had left
the ones on the regioodent--that there were any
, Lithos' in which the , bishop had come into eclat sad
pecamuowl • NS WOOS of deprivation on en oireadin‘

clergyman. The appellant had alluded to the practice in
the Consistory Court, and had argued that there must
be analog/ between the practice of that court and the
Court of Arches, but their lordships were of opinion
that this technical objection bad completely foiled. The
appellant had further appealed to their lordships on the
ground of the severity of his punishment, and
had contended that • sentence of deprivation was not
pronounced fur a single offence but for • course of
misconduct. But it was clearly proved by the
evidence that Mr. Bona ell, • married insn,
and a clergyman of the established church, had been
guilty of systematic seduction and adultery, that he
lrid so polluted the mind of • young girl as to make
her imbnit to his embraces, and that in a room devoted
to the edueation of children she had brought forth the
fruit of their illegal intercourse, thus canning a great
scandal to the whole body of the church. Mr. Bon-
well said he bad repented, therefore that hc ought to
be restored to his cure, and he had dared to bring for-
ward the lives of many of the saints as an excuse for
and palliation of his conduct, but with th use religions
men there was • deep and sincere repentance' whereas
the only feeling which appeared to animate Mr. Bon-
well was the low and sordid one of regaining noire-
sion of the income of Lis benfllce. On all the points
raised their lonlships would feel it to be their duty to
recommend to Her Majesty in council to affirm the
sentence of the court below' and to dismiss the appeal ;
and their lordshipe regretted that, as the appellant
sued in fermi pauperis, the appeal could not be din-
iniamd with costs._ . _

Judgment accordingly. There is no appeal from this
decision ; so the sentence of deprivation against Mr.
Bouwell stands.