The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-02-17 00:00:00

"STRANGER THAN FICTION."

On Monday, Lord Romilly gave judgment in the extra-
ordinary suit of "Gilchrist u. Herbert," the arguments M
which were heard before the end of Hilary term. His lord-
ship first went through the narrative, as established by the
evidence, of which the following is an outline
The plaintiff was living in Calcutta in 1859, having
been left a widow with five children on the death of her
husband, Mr. Farquhar. Early in 1861 she became
engaged to a Dr. Evans, who rented part of the house
which Mrs. Farquhar let out in lodgings. In the
same year Mr. James Gilchrist, a widower, the senior
partner of a large firm of tailors in Calcutta, wrote to
her a proposal of marriage. Receiving no 'reply, Ise
wrote a second letter, in which he promised to settle
£lO,OOO on her in pin money, and to leave her half
his property by a will, which shou!d never be
altered. These letters she showed to Dr. Evans,
who at her request released her from her engagement
to marry him, upon which she accepted the proposal of
Mr. Gilchrist. Early in 1862, Mrs. Farquhar came to
England, and woe followed by Mr. Gilchrist, who intro-
duced her to his friends as his future wife. In the
autumn of the same year they returned to Calcutta,
the one a month after the other. There the plaintiff
lodged with a Mrs. Windsor, at whose house Mr.
Gilchrist visited her so assiduously as to call forth
the complaints of the landlady, to whom Mrs.
Farquhar communicated the fact of their engage-
ment. On the Id April, 1863, the marriage took place,
to the great surprise of all Mr. Gilchrist's Indian
friends, who had been kept in ignorance of the en-
gagement. Two days afterwards the pair sailed
for England, where they arrived in May. On the
6th June, after six weeks' compulsory residence with
the plaintiff on board ship and three weeks' volun-
tary association in England, Mr. Gilchrist left her;
and on the 30th June she instituted proceedings in
the Divorce Court for restitution of conjugal rights.
In October the suit was compromised by an arrange-
ment for the separate maintenance of Mrs. Gilchrist.
After this they lived together as man and wife,
separated on affectionate terms, and never met again.
On her return to India she:encountered the memorable
cyclone in the Indian Ocean, and lost all her luggage,
ans nig it being, assuming them to have existed, the
letters containing the promise of Mr. Gilchrist, to en-
force the specific performance of which this bill was
filed. Shy returned to England in May, 1865 ; in
September, 1869, Mr. Gilchrist died, and this suit was
instituted in the following March.
His lordship said that the evideace as to the de-
struction of the letters was satisfactory. lie then went
on to consider the evidence given as to their contents ;
the principal witness relied on being Dr. Evans him-
self, who was cross-examined by Sir It. Baggallay.
The only fair inference to be drawn from the existence
was that the second letter did contain the promise.
Then came the question—How could Mrs. Gilchrist,
having in her possession a letter containing such a
promise, remain silent on the subject both to her hus-
bainl and her solicitor when the separation deed was
prepared or write to her husband such letters as were
set .sit in her evidence? In one of those letters she
says :
"The income (L4OO a year) you have been kind enough to
settle on nie is quite enough for me to live upon. But at
my death my children will be beggars, I must therefore
make hay while the sun shines."
Ii a-dship was of opinion that the silence of the
plaintiff on the subject of the promise was sufficiently
explained by the natural desire on her part to conceal
the circumstance him her husband's relatives, who were
all more or less hostile to her. The plaintiff then made
out her ca.:, and the only question remaining was,
whether a court of equity would decree specific per-
formance of a contract alleged to have been contained
in doiannents said to have been lost. His lordship was
of opinion that equity would entertain such a suit.
He, therefore, held the plaiatiff absolutely entitled to
one-half of the testator's estate, the other half going
to his daughter Letitia.