The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-28 00:00:00

TRE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 28, 1864.

ap'pellant referred to a Scotcfi marriage, it could only mean
that the ceremony was to satisfy the conscientious scruples
of the respondent, and that it would not be regarded as such
an acknowledgment as the law required. The noble and
learned lord then proceeded to censider whether the latter
correspondence oould be fairly applied to any other relation
between the parties than that which occurred in Ireland.
The respondent contended that after the ceremony at Ros-
trevor she returned to the appellant and cohabited with
him, and that this copula, coupled with the preceding
promise in Scotland, constituted marriage. But there
was no evidence of a promise in Scotland. A promise
in Scotland was moreover merely local, and to prove a mar-
riage the copula must be distinctly referable to the promise.
He thought it was impossible to connect this copula with,
any promise of marriage which took place in Edinburgh.
He (Lord Chelmsford) had examined, the evidence with the
greatest care and anxiety, as well as the arguments of
counsel on both sides, knowing that most serious issues
were involved. Ho had no wish to favour either
party. There was much to regret, much to condemn
in the conduct of both, but it was not his duty to adjust the
balance between them. All he had to do was to announce
his decision judicially, and that was that the respondent
had entirely failed to establish her marriage.
Lord Kingsdown said the matter had been so fully con-
sidered that he would occupy the time of their lordships
but for a few minutes. The question was not ono of honour
or morals, but whether the court below had rightly decided
the validity of the marriage. It was clear from the letters
of the respondent that sbe had pressed the appellant very
warmly for a marriage, but he apparently saw the error of
the step he had taken, and had determined not to trust
himself to further temptation. The purport of his letters ap-
peared to be this " If we meet again the result will be your
ruin." The Irish marriage did not make them husband and
wife. The respondent's own impression seemed to be that the
Marriage would make them husband and wife in the eye of
God, although it might not in the eye of man, It was
urged that the appellant had said to Father Mooney that
the marriage was unnecessary as it had all been done before,
but that he would do it again in order to satisfy the
lady's conscience. These terms were very ambigu-
ous, and he thought too much reliance ought not to
be placed upon them. On the whole, he thought the
judgment of the Court below ought to be reversed.

The Attorney-General suggested that, in consequence of
the views of their lordships, the interlocutory of the Court
below should.be reversed, but without prejudice to the
respondent, and that the matter be remitted on oath,

The Lord Chancellor declined to advise to adopt tha'

course.

The question was then put that the interlocutory of the
Court below be reversed.
Contents—Lord Wensleydale, Lord Chelmsford, and
Lord Kingsdown.
Non-Content—The Lord Chancellor.
The motion was then agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor then put the question, that the
decree should be made in accordanoe with the appeal.
Agreed to.
Thus this long and celebrated case is finally brought to
a close.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

MA RLB °ROUGH- S TRE ET.
BREAKING OPEN A TILL AT MESSRS. SAVORY AND
Bloom's —Henry Camins, orrand-boy in the employ of
Messrs. Savory and Moore, chemists, 220, Regent-street,
was charged before Mr Knox with breaking open a till and
stealing the suns of £8 Bs. 3d., the moneys of his
employers.

Mr Foster Blades, assistant, in the employ of Messrs.
Savory and Moore, said that about half-past 11 on the 13th
of July, while sitting in a room at the back of the shop the
prisoner asked him whether he should turn off the gas. He
told the prisoner to do so. Shortly after the porter made
a communication to him, and on going into the shop he
found a till, which he had seen safe up to half-past 10, and
the key of which he had in his pocket, had been broken
open, and some money abstracted, and from a till which
had not been locked, some more money had been taken.
George South, porter, in the employ of Messrs. Savory
and Moore, said that shortly before 12 o'clock, on the night
of the 13th of July, hearing the prisoner going down stairs
ho called to him, but received no answer. As the prisoner
did not again come upstairs, he went down and asked Mr
Blades if he had sent the prisoner out. Mr Blades said ho
had not, and then went into the shop and found the till had
been broken open. On making a further search he (witness)
found that the prisoner had left the house by the back docr,
two doors which he (witness) had locked at half-past 11
being open.

William Richardson, 212 C, said the prisoiNr was given
into his custody last night in Carnaby-street, and on telling
him that ho was charged with breaking open a till at Messrs
Savory and Moore's, he said he knew nothing about it, and
that they would not get anything out of him.
_ _

Mr Blades said ho heard .a
noise in the shop, but thought
it was the prisoner putting down his bed, as he slept there.
Mr Joseph Walker, another assistant, gave evidence
which showed that £5 Ss 9d had been abstracted from one
till (the sum of £9 12s being wrapped in paper in the same
till and left untouched), and £1 19s 6d from the other.
The prisoner, who made no answer to the charge, was
remanded for a week.