The Express.
London, England, 1864-06-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
APPEALS.
TELVERTOZI V. TILVERTON.

The arguments in this OM were on this, the tenth day of
the hearing, resumed at 11 o'clock, by
The AttoreeyOeneral, who stated that he had arrived at
the last letter of the respondent's, which was the last but
one of the correspondence. It appeared that a letter of the
appellant at this period was not forthcoming ; bed it was
argued that there were sufficiently good reasons why it
should have been destroyed. In this letter it was aßeged by
the appellant that he denied a statement of the respondent
in a letter to which his was a reply, to the effect that
" he could recollect that she told him before she oonsenk
to keep the marriage secret," and in which he distinctly de-
nied that she had ever made such a statement. The Attor-
ney-General then, in reference to a number of letters which
were not put in in evidence, pointed out that the respond-
ent accounted for this by a statement on the record that,
subsequent to her leaving Edinburgh in April, 1857, and at
an inn in Ireland, the appellant happened to see the packet
containing those letters in respondent's heads, when
he said that they ought to b 3 destroyed, is
they were of no further nee, and might, if lost,
expose him and the respondent to ridicule, or
even he the means of letting his uncle bear of the mar.
riage, and they were destroyed by him. Referring to the
letter of the respondent to Mr. Mooney, asking for a ear.
tificate of the marriage in Ireland, and his answer, It was
argued that, however the introduction of the names of
witnesses into the certificate who were not present by
him might affect Mr. Mooney's testimony, it could not
operate against the respondent, as she was no party
to that act. As to the evidence of Mr. Mooney
be gave the certificate in the usual form and
perhaps may have hunted the names of the
witnesses as whimsies to the certificate but not of
the marriage. At this point a good deal of time was con-
sumed in a technical argument as to the mode in which the
court below dealt with the certificate as a document which
was tendered in evidence, and which was finally admitted.
The respondent in writing to Mr. Mooney after the appel-
lant's marriage with Mrs. Forbes, said she feared that the
Scotch marriage would not stand, as the appellant would
swear that it never took place ; this, it was alleged, might
be taken as a confirm►tion of the statement of Mr. Mooney
th►t he understood that a previous marriage had
token place between the parties. Adverting to the
correspondence which took place between the re-
spondent and the appellant's brother in Edinburgh
after the marriage with Mrs. Forbes, and which on the other
aide it was assorted that the respondent, though finding her.
self effectually repudiated, did not make any reference to or
meet her claim to be the wife of the appellant, it was urged
that the correspondence was a continuation of an attempt
made by the appellant to induce respondent to
give up all claim to him, to leave this country and to go
to one of the colonies ; while he gave any intimation
that he was about to marry Mrs, Forbes, but only pressed
on her that he bad been ruined by his improvident marriage
with the respondent. In that correspondence the ap-
pellant's brother rend that " the present storm
must be allowed to blow over," and this was
written the day after the marriage with Mrs. Forbes, and
it showed that it was intended that that fact should be int-
ended from respondent. The learned counsel having at
length concluded his dealing with detain, proceeded to sum
up his argument, as it was intended to present the re.
spondeet's case to the house.