The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-02-01 00:00:00

TRIAL OF SIR GIDEON CULLING
EARDLEY FOR BIGAMY.

At the Central Criminal Court in London, on
on-
day, Sir Gideon Culling Eardley, Bart., thirty-one,
was placed at the bar, to take his trial for feloniously
intermarrying with Mary Elizabeth Allen, at the dos.
Blot Church of St. George's, Hanoversiquare, London,
his wife, Emily Florence Magee, to whom he hail been
previously married at New York, in the United
States of America, being alive.
Mr Giffard, Q C. In opening the ease to the jury, said
In the summer and autumn of Mg the prisoner, then Mr.
Eardley woo travelling in Canada and America, and while
in New York he met in society a Miss Magee, daughter of a
large cotton broker. After a short acquaintance fie promised
marriage, and the proposal woo accepted by the young lady,
aubjeet to the approval of her father, who was then in
England, in which event it was arranged that the marriage
should be solemnized towards the end of 1851). In the mean-
time Mr. Eardley visited England, PIM returned to New
York in December of that year. lie vvns then introduced
to Mr. Magee, the lady's father, and with his Salletioll and
that of all her friends the marriage was solemnized in the
usual way. There were a large number of persons present,
Including many ladies, friends of the bride, and some gentle-
men who had been travelling with the prisoner in America
lie then came to England with his bride, and it afterwards
transpired that he had not previously acquainted his father,
Sir Calling Eardley, who woo then living, with his intention
to contract marriage. But it was due to the memory of the
late baronet to say that on the marriage coming to his
knowledge he made arrangemerts for the comfort of
the newly-married pair, and with that view made a hand-
some settlement, which was still in existence. In
1863, however, Mr. Eardley's conduct had become
such as to render it impossible for his wife to live
any longer with him. PI e ; Mr. Gillen]) was warranted in
saying On the part of Lady Ei.dley that the separation was
not due to any fault of hers, and that, on the contrary, in
July, 1865, the prisoner wrote a letter to her, acknowledging
that it arose entirely in consequence of his own misconduct,
and entreating her to he reconciled to him. But her friends,
she having secured the sympathy of all the members of his
"

them to live together again under the circumstances, and
they continued to live apart. Nothing more would probably
have been heard of the matter, so far as his wife wan con-
cerned, but the prisoner leaving contracted a second
• marriage with a Mess Allen the circumstances were altered.
The publication of that second marriage wan against the
prisoner's will, and Lady Eardley and her father having
heard that he was repudiating the first marriage in New
York this proceeding wan inAitutea poring the whole
of the time he lived with his first wife it was never
eagftested that her marriage was invalid, hut. in spite of
that he had instructed his coensel to say en the last occa-
.

abm on which the case was before the Court that there were
circumstances connected with ii rendering it illegal To
negative that assertion the most conclusive evidence would
" be laid before the jury. In the United States the facilities
• "' formarnage were very great, but it would be deplorable,
having regard to the number id Englishmen who visited
America in these times, if a marriage contracted under such
circumstances of publicity as this should he set aside after
an interval of eight years. Nir. fliffard, however, did not
believe that any civilised community wopld ever offend
against the morals and decorum of society 11. a manner such
a. was suggested by the defence. He should prove the
simple facts, and in the event of the absence of any satisfac-
tory answer the jury would have to say whether the prisoner
had committed the offence of bigamy.
Mr James Magee was first called, He said,—l reside at
4, Lancaster-street, Hyde Park. In 1859 I was part of the
time in England, and part of it M New Yolk. My
daughter lived with me in New York, after I returned
from England. In December, 1859, I first became ac-
quainted with the prisoner Ile paid his addresses to my
daughter, anti on the 12th of December, 1859, my daughter
was married to him In Calvary Church, hew York, by the
Rev. Dr. Hawks. I was present anti heard the ceremony,
and they signed the register. Dr. flacks handed me a cer-
tificate of the marriage, and said it would be as good in
Engiand as anywhere else. 1. woe both the prisoner and niy
daughter sign the register. After the ceremony they lived
together as husband and wife. She is still alive.
Cross-examined by Mr ld Williams: I cannot say how
long they were acquainted before the marriage. When I
started for England in June or July I knew nothing of Mr.
Eardley. I returned to America in October, 1e.59, and I heard
of the engagement from my daeghter the day I
left Liver-
pool for New York. Something wca said to me, but not
there, auto keeping the matter a secret, as Mr. Eardley svas
not then In
_America:. That was when I returned to New

York, and Mr. Esrdley was not then in America. I am
quite sure I saw the register signed. Many other persons
were also in the registry-room at the time. Some of them
are now present. I did not ask if the marriage would be
good in England. That was a voluntary statement made by
Or. Hawks, without any question having been asked him.
Since the separation my daughter has lived with me.
Re-examined by Mr °Ward, Q.C. The marriage Itself was
.•

- ,
never kept secret after its celebration. About 100 persons
were present. Dr. hawks is a popular preacher and cele-
brated divine.
At this stage the subjoined letter, written by the prisoner
to Lady Eardley, was put in by the counsel for the prosecu-
tion and read by Mr. Avory, the clerk of arraigns :
" 10, Sackville-street, W , July 292 1566.
. .

"I hardly know whether you will 14ceits.e-n•W letter b
as our friend Dr. Pettigrew has communicated with you I
venture to writo lie has told you that 1 ant mo.t anxious
to lie reunited with you, and I come to ask it of you.
Florence I have wronged you terribly. I have wronged
you in your self-respeet, and have been a selfish, bad husband
to you till now. And yet Iso believe in your nature that I
crave and beg you to take me back. I have sinned grievously
and have no excuse. Will you forgive met I cannot write you
a composetiletter: I just pour out my own feelings. My own
wife, if you only knew what hitter remorse I have gone
through since we parted at the London-bridge, you would at
any rate pity me. Oh ! by the memory of old days at
Gilead Lodge, St. Leonard's, and Liverpool, let me be as I
was. Reproach me if you will, mistrust me—you are in your
right—but take me back. As a child I come to you. Lead
me, my wife. 110 cc you, indeed I love you. I lung, oh' so
fully, to he worthy of you. I shall work hard to Increase
What is left of my ill-spent fortune to make tip to you as far
as I can. I believe, though my relations will stand aloof
from me, that I am young enough and have enough in me to
win a good name for your sake by myself, that you may not
be ashamed of being my wife. Will you answer me your-
self. and net send my note to your lawyers? Don't, I pray,
refuse me. Think over it, and if you cannot love me enough
to receive me cram, write to me yourself to say so; but Mt
me see your handwriting again. My own, own wife,
.‘ Your undeserving husband,
"EARDLEY
Mr. Meseta), Miposett that he was in New York Decem-
ber, 1850, and WWII present at the marriage. mid that he was
acquainted with Miss Magee and her father before the mar-
riage: that a very considerable number of person were
Present and heard the parties agree to take each other for
man and wife. He could not, however, remember being
present when the register was signed.
Mr. Robert De Tracey Gould, examined by Mr. Giffard,
Q.C. 1 aiu a member of the American Bar, and practised
for some years at New York. I hare heard the evidence as
to the manner in which the maariaze was solemnised, and
that, according to the law of New York, would render It a
perfectly valid marriage. Eves if there had been no regis-
tration, the validity of the marriage would not have been
affected in the slightest degree—registration being purely
eptional.
cross-examined the witness amid The law of mar-
riage in the various States differs. The publication of banns
In the State of New York is not necessary, nor is the sliming
a register. Witnesses are nnnecinsary, and the p irti a need
not be married in a church. It,. a long established custom
that a marriage should be performed by &clergyman of some
recognised denomination, or by a magistrate. There is no
statute directing that a marriage must be by a clergyman. A
marriage before witnesses is sufficient—it may be by a clergy-
man, or, in the absence of a clergyman, before witnesses. It
has lwon held in New York that a marria.e in the Scotch
lostri Ia valid, but l don't think such a marriage has taken
plum, or been sustained, for many years. The only statute
referring to tam marriage of persons of different faiths pro-
vides that a U:arrlage by a Jewish priest, sir a clergy rmse of
an 7 denomination, stall entitle the parties to register if they
choose but there is nothing aitectlng the validity of such a
marriage. A Protestant and Catholic can be married by a
clergy man of either faith, or by a magietrate ; they need not
pe married by both.
liemaainined I know Dr. Hawks well. Ile is a man of
mime celebrity, iitta in December, 1859, was the rector of
Calvary Church.
Mr. William Henry Bannister, registrar of marriages for
the district of St. George's, Hanoversgeare, produced the
register of the BeColid marriage on the 12th of September
Just between the prisoner, described as Eardlev Gideon Cul-
ling Eardley, loaronet, 31 years of age, bachelor, of 4U,
Clarges-street, Piecatlilly, and Thiry Elizabeth Allen, 21,
deserliwil as a spinster, and rodding at 168, Cambridge.
street, South Belgravia Hath parties signed the register in
the presence of witnesses and in his (witness's, presence.
Mr. Joseph Harris Stretton, of 3. Gray's imesquare, soli-
citor, produced a deed of separation made between the
defendant and Lady Eardley 00 the 2nd of October. 1863,
$0 which he was an attesting witness., and in which Lady
Eardley was described as the eefendant's mife. Ile also pro-
dived a deed, dated the 14th of July, 1860, to which the
defendant was a party, and by which the late Sir Culling
Eardley settled £5OO a year on the defendant's wife now
Lady Eardley) in tne names of trustees, payable in certain
events, one of which was if the defendant became bankrupt.
fll orma-examination he aaid defendant had since become
a bankrupt.
Mr. Magee was recalled at the instamea of the counsel for
the defence, and said he was the prosecutor, and he first
saw the announcement of the second marriage in The 7'imes
newspaper.
.1 lei was the casa fr the prosecution.
tir, stoutagu Williams then addressed the jury for the
defence, prendsitet that he was not about to call witnesses. It
11.11 distressing, his sail, to see a gentleman of good family,
MA inheriting a noble name, occupying the position of the
yietsoner, out if ally parson had been wronged in the matter
It was not the Best wife, but the semind Although he had
sos dieect evidence on the point, it was a queatlen for the
jury te consider whether or no at the time the second mar-
riage was contracted the defendant twlieved the first in-
valid. That he was under the impression that it was in-
valid was lobe inferred from the letter he wrote to Lady
'Eardley, in which, desiring to be reconciled, they would
remember he used the tel, "re-united." The defendant
was heir to a very large tortuue, and, as a matter of comae,
was a desirable son-in-law. The marriage was hastily struck
up, and a ceremony of some kind was ohserved on the sae-
Mahal at New York, the parties to which believed at the
Lime that it was a valid LEW One could not help being
struck with the testimony of It,. Gould as to the state of
the morriage law lithe Ceded States, for, acgeriling to that
gentleman, two parties out walking might contract a sisal-
no bean', ;to witnesses, and no signing a register being
necessary.
The Recorder, interposing, said that was a state of the law
such neerer home than America. A laugh
Mr Williams No doubt still it was • strange state of
things. In this caw one of the parties to the marriage was
a Protestant and the other a Catholic. They could not
agree, and a separation took place, but the defendant after-
wards desired to be "reunited" to Lady Eardley, that being
jhe expression he used in the overtures he made to her with
oat view. The defendant had been advised, however bailie,
that the marriage was not legal, and he (Mr. %Valliant., sub-
amittosi that there must be proof of a knowledge on the part
of the defendant at the Dane he contracted the second mar-
riage that the first W. valid lyg fore he could be convicted of
bigamy Ile could have protected himself, for a time, at
}east by keeping the second marriage a secret; hit Instead
of that it was annsiunced in The T,on,s. If he had not
believed tlei New York marriage was illegal, he would have
been a maniac to have annumiced the second in a news-
Veber.
Ina Recorder, in Ids summing tip, said it was clear that
In Detomner, lead, the prisoner will married. in Amerita,
sod that by the American law that was a perfea:tly legal
Marriage. It was also proved that he had contra,ted a
second marriage, The suggestion was that he did not know
the first marriage was legal; but of that there was not a
tittle of evidence. On the contrary, the. prisontr hail Beale
and again performed various acts chewing that he thought
the marriage was a legal one. In the deed of separatio. to
which be was a party she was described as his wife, and it
was recited that &fferences haul arisen between them. Again,
Ist the letter to his wife, he stated that those differences boil
been entirely oceasionmi by his own misconduct. Th.. only
thing that had been suggsptesi as a proof that the prisoner con.
sidered the New York marriage illegal was the atkrawnwle.
strut ta The Times of the Steoll.l marriage. But, In the
first place, there was no prumf that he Unwed that .1101111 C-
C t,k be made, and there was another person who might
have had an especial Interest in the Insertion of suith
an advertisement. He 'the Recorder' really could not
'largest to the jury a single circumstance showing that
the prisoner dad not know his Ilret marriage was iegal.
It would lies dangerous thing to suggest that a peas.an was
not doing a criminal act in going through a aeconil mar-
riage while his lawful wife was still alive. There watt co
evidence that the prisoner had the slightest doubt alma the
laWful nese of his first marriage, awl he the Recorder could
/suggest nothing to the Pary by which they could arrive at
any other conclusion than that he was platy.
The jury, without leavitm the box returned a verdict of
Guilty.
The Recorder said he ought to be made acquainted with
some 11110111 circumstances in this case. Ile asked if the
semind wife was
Mr. 3i otitaau SWillanis replied in the negative.
Mr I.itfard said she was present at the last sessions when
the falai was pestponed, but she had staddenly disappeared
from r lodgings.
Mr. Williams said he was most anxious that she should
bays been present.

The Recorder asked if theirs was an—YU:dog to show that
the sesouil wife had money
Mr. Williams replied that there was no evidence of that.
She was a lady who was acting at Drury-lane Theatre.
i Mr Gifford said as to there bet, gno money hy the leaved
' wife his I, formation WWI very different.
The Recorder, addressing the prisoner, said —You have
been convicted oil perfectly elect evidence ot the offence .if
bigamy, and have subjected yourself to a very severe punish-
ment. The •.rcurnstatices which attended your second
inert iage have not been laid before the court, and we are not
in a position to Judge what may have been the extent
of criminality committed by you hi going through the
form of marriage with a person to whom you presented
yourself as a lawful husband. Supposing circumstances had
been laid before us aggravating the case, and showing there
had been further crmilltlity than that disclosed by that
evidence, it would have been the duty of the court to pass
upi di you the severest punishment which the law would
sanction. In the absence of those circumstances, we can act
only on the evidence before us, which goes to show that you,
being a person if position and education, mint have known
perfectly well the nature of the act you were comniitting,
and the amount of Injury you were likely to inflict upon
others. For the offence of which you have been convicted
the sentence of the court tat a ,t you be imprisoned and kept
to hard labour for IS calend: r months.