The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-28 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTBLLIGENCB.

CIRCUIT.-KINGSTON, MARCH 26.
1317011 Ma. 13410,1 ALISMISMS A,O A 14r1cueL JEST.

J•eazzr O. TOLLMIACIIS

This action was brought to recover et sum of money
alleged to have been expended in necessaries for a person
named Elizabeth Acfurd, who was represented to be the
wile of the defendant.

Mr. Bramwell, Q.C., and Mr. Boyd! were counsel for the
plaintiff; Mr. Serjerint Shec and Mr. M. Chambers, Q C.,
appeared fur the defendant ; Mr. Willem was also engaged
in watching the case, as it was understood, on behalf of
Lady Dyairt, the mother of the defendant.
Mr. Bramwell, in opening the case, said that the plain-
tiff, Arthur Jarre't, was a person in a humble condition of
life, being the relieving officer to one portion of Lambeth
parish ; and the defendant was the Hon. William Felix
Lionel Tollemache, commonly called Lord Huntingtower,
the son of the Earl of Dysart, a nobleman of very ancient
family and of large possessions. The action was brought to
recover compente•tion for the support of a lady and
three children. That the children were really the children
of the defendant he believed there was not the slightest
doubt, and he believed that the only question in the cause
would be, whether their mother was the wife of the defend-
ant ; and he believed he should lay evidence before them
which would leave no reasonable doubt of that fact. The
circumstances under which the claim arose were of rather.
peculiar character. It spin-and, that about the middle of
the year 1849 the plaintiff, in his capacity of relieving-
officer, was called upon to visit a ease of a lady and three
children who were living in the parish, and whom he found
in a state of utter destitution. By the direction of the
board of guardiaus be gave them relief, and continued to
do so fur a period of nine months ; and it appeared that
then the case of the lady having been investigated, some
persons interposed in her behalf, and a lodging of some kind
was provided for her and her children. Soon afterwards,
however, she again became reduced to distress, and a
second time applied to the plaintiff, who was so impressed,
from the information he had obtained, with the hardship
of her case, and struck by the misery and destitution in
which she was left by the defendant, that to avoid the ne-
cessity of sending her to the union workhouse, which was
the only alternative, he resolved to take the lady and her
children into his own house, and provide them theta with
such necessaries as they required, in the hope that the de-
fendant, who he had no reason to doubt was the husband
of the lady, would one day do her justice, and at all events
repay him the amount he had expended for the support of
his wife and children. As he had before said, there was no
doubt whatever that the children were the children of Lord
Ilunlingtower, and lie would now state the circumstances
under which he said the parties became connected, and
the evidence by which he should endeavour to establish the
fact of a contract of marriage having been made between
them according to the forms of the Scotch law. The name
of the lady was Elisabeth Acfurd, and she was the daughter
of a respectable geatleman in Devonshire, and it appeared
that the defendant upon seeing her expressed a violent pas-
sion for her. He asked the consent of his mother, the Coun-
tess of Dysart, to their union, and upon her refusal to grant
it, his case on the part of the plaintiff would be, that
the defendant took the lady to Scotland and there
married her. The jury were perhaps aware that by the
law of that country a marriage was • much more simple
proceeding than it was in this country, and indeed almost
any ceremony would amount there to what is termed a
contract of marriage, which was perfectly binding upon
both parties, and it was a very strange thing that these
cautious neighbours were satisfied with much less so-
lemnity in a proceeding of this important character, than
was required in the disposal of any goods or chattels of the
most trifling amount. lie should be able to show them,
therefore, that some sort of ceremony was performed, and
he was also in a condition to prove that the defendant him-
self had stated that what took place in Scotland was the
more binding because he was the sou of a Scotch peer. This
marriage occurred in 1844, and it appeared that the parties
lived together as man and wife until 1818, and during that
period three children, all girls, were born. During all this
time they lived together as man and wife, and passed by
the same name, but at the period he had mentioned,
whether the defendant's passion hail cooled, or that
the lady had become older, or front some other cause,
of which he was ignorant, the defendant abruptly broke off
the canner inn, and left his wife and children to be reduced
to a state of utter destitution, and ever since, with one ex-
ception, which was almost too paltry to be mentioned, he
bad never afforded them the slightest assistance. The
plaintiff, under these circumstances, was compelled to
bring the present action, and he said that when the jury
had heard the evidence he should lay before them, he
believed they would entertain no doubt that the lady in
question was really the wife of the defendant, and that
he was liable to the plaintiff for the expense be had in-
curred in supporting her and her children.
The following witnesses were then examined :
Mr. A. Jarratt deposed that he was the relieving pffioer
for one of the districts of Lambeth parish, and the plain-
tiff in the present action, In July, 1849, his attention
was called to the case of a lad, who was called Mrs.
Tellersache, and her three children. He found them oc-
cupyt'ng a room in a house in Prince's-square, and in very
great end destitution. Witness relieved them. In
September, 1860, he was again called upon to see the
same lady and her children, and found them in the same
state. Upon this occasion, upon information he had re-
ceived, he was induced Weak, the lady and her children
into his own house, where they remained from the 19th of
September, 1860 to the Ist et April, 1862, and during that
period be expended altogether for their support tits sum
of 1984.

Se •By rjeant Shee—l hail no communication with Lord
Huntingtower'e solicitor before I took the lady into my
house. The parish solicitors, I believe, did apply to him,
and I Inerd that an answer was received to the effect, that
the woman wee not the wife of Lord Huntiagtower.
Emma Alfyatt deposed that she went into the service of
the defendant and the lady in question, in 1845 At that
time they lived in the Wandsworth-rand. They • were
called Mr. and Mrs. Tollemsehe, and it was always under-
stood that thee were man and wife. Witness remained
with Mrs. Tollemache until 1849, when she left her service;
she was unable to pay her her wages any longer. In Feb-
ruary, 1848, the defendant sent her and her mistress into Mon-
mouthshire, to a place called Blue Brown House, and the
defendant used to come there to visit the lady, and when
he was absent they continually corresponded together. In
September, 1848, witness and her mistress returned to Lon-
don, and went to ledge at a Miss Pottle's, in Kennington-
lane, and in October of that year a quarrel took place be-
tween the defendant and her mistress, and they never lived
together afterwards. The defendant, during the time she
lived with him, frequently chsaged his name, but her mis-
tress always went by the same name that he did, and they
always lived together as man and wife. The first child
was born in September, 1845, the second in November,
1846, and the third in January, 1848. The defendant al-
ways appeared to be very kind to the children, and the
oldest used to call him papa. When they lived in Ken-
nington-lane the defendant and his lady passed as Mr. and
Mrs. Langford. They travelled about to a great many dif-
ferent places, Ind assumed many different names. The
defendant was frequently very short of cash, and
at one place a distress was put in and they were
turned out of doors. Upon one occasion, when
they were living at Beaky, something was said
by the landlady, which came to the knowledge of the de-
fendant, and he spoke to her upon the subject ; and, upon
her saying that it had been stated that he was going to se-
parate from her mistress, he told her to make henelf con-
tented, for that her mistress was his wife, and if he mar-
ried another woman she could convict him for bigamy.
This was in 1846. The defendant at the same time said to
her that he had asked his mother's consent to marry, but
eScearitlgrod.,
and,
ohti
his father
i awn tah e
Scotchr efore
pheee
r,
tookit m ha
de re
ttho
ment more binding. Upon another occasion she went hate
her mistress's room, and found her crying, and the defen-
dant said to her "Here is your mistress blubbering be-
cause I have burned some letters." There were some frag-
ments of burnt letters in the grate at the time. In October,
1848, when they were living in Kennington-lane, the de-
fendant came to the house one Sunday, and there was a
'violent struggle between him and her mistress because he
wanted, as she understood, to go into a room to get some
letters and destroy them. lie did not succeed in
getting into the room, and after the scuffle
was over they went down stain, and the defen-
dant said, in the pr. Bence of the landlady, that her
mistress was not his wife. The landlady asked him if she
wit' not his wife, why he had brought her into her house.
11er mistress said that she was his wife, upon which the de-
fendant said, " It you had a thousand pounds you might
gain your rights, but where is it to come from ? MT mother
will spend a fortune or thousands against it." 'lbis took
place on a Sunday, and the defendant created 10 much