The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-08 00:00:00

YELVERTON V. YELVERTON (OR LONG-WORTH).
Their lordships resumed the consideration of this long-
protracted case to-day, happily the last day, with the ex-
ception of that on which the house will deliver j ;dgment.
There were present the Lord Chancellor, who presided, Lord
Brougham, Lord Wensleydale, Lord Chelmsford, and Lord
Kingsdown.
Mr Rolt, Q.C., in continuing his reply, said that yester-
day he had called attention to his conviction that there had
been no promise of marriage in Scotland. He had said all ha
considered necessary to be said both on the point of law and
fact, snd all that remained for him to do was to show that
the hypothesis of a marriage in Scotland or elsewhere
was wholly without foundation,—that there never was
enything in the nature of a promise of marriage, and
he would now proceed with that part of the case.
Referring to the terms of the alleged promise, he said he
doubted whether that version of the affair was correct that
there was any promise of marriage at all. Those words
could not by any law of evidence be made to refer to
marriage at all. There was nothing in it that could
tend to bring it to marriage. They might bring it within
the probability of marriage, but it was impossible to carry it
beyond that. The words were "I promised to do more
than I could have performed when the time came," Was it
within the nature of things that by any possibility they
could make those words refer to marriage He contended
that those words were not sufficient to establish a promise.
To establish a promise there must be something pointing
to a union of the parties, to the relationship of the parties.
There was nothing of the sort in these words which
pointed to whatever the other portions of the evidence might
convey. -Upon the whole he submitted that the portion he
advanced, in his opinion, was clear, namely, that marriage
was not the footing on which Major Ysiverton and Miss
Longworth went to Scotland—on the contrary that they
met on a footing which was directly opposed to marriage.
Major Yelverton had positively refused marriage, and after
that Miss Longworth accsded to his proposals. These were
the points on which he proposed to satisfy their lordships.
The learned counsel proceeded to speak of the discrepancies
in Miss Longworth's evidence, and of the character which
Major Yelvarton had borne.

Lord Brougham—What. Do you intend to rely upon
the excellent character of Major Yelverton
Mr Rolt thought ho was entitled to adopt that line of
argument.
Lord Brougham said he was not speaking of Major Yel-
vorton's immoralities in the ordinary sense.
Mr Rolt said that the contention was that Major Yelver-
ton was not guilty of treachery in the seduction of Miss

Longworth. That was abundantly plain, he thought, from
the evidence, The learned gentleman then proceeded to
speak of the recklessness of Miss Longworth's averments,
and urged that the macner of introduction of the patties
was not such as to lead a gentleman in Major Yelverton's
position.--an officer in the array—to think of marriage, but
it was that sort of introduction which might possibly lead a
young lady in Miss Longworth's position to suppose that it
must eventuatein marriage. The Attorney-General had oon
tended that some of the letters contained, in metaphorical
language, a promise of marriage, which Miss Longworth
accepted; but those letters he maintained did not admit of

the interpretation which his learned friend had put upon
them, and this he thought sufficiently proved by the fact
that in subsequent letters Miss Longworth had shown that
she did not regard the words relied upon in the light of a
promise, In cue of these letters, drawing her illustration
from the drama, site said the next " act" in their career
could not be written. Now, if matrimony were intended,
there was no earthly reason why it might not be written
about. If marriage had been really expected Cr intended
there would have been no occasion for metaphors and
inuendoes, and the part es would not have indulged in cold
and indifferent language about it, Moreover, she had
spoken of their indefinable relative position, which was
inconsistent with the idea of marriage. In reference to
that pusitioa Miss Longworth had stated that she had
explained to the superior of a convent the nature of that
position, but that she had given that view of the case
which cleared her character. She did not say she had told
the truth; and if there had been any truth in the statement
that there had been a promise of marriage, there would have
been no occasion for such equivocation. In fact, Major Yel-
verton had explicitly put her upon her guard against a con-

tinuance of an acquaintance which might result in an illicit
connection; and it was an important fact, bearing upon
that branch of the case, that all the interviews between the

parties were sought by Miss Longworth, and not by Major
Yelverton. Miss Longworth's letters contained strong ap-
peals for marriage. He would not detain their lordships by
reading the letter on which the Attorney Generalrelied—that
letter in which her last appeal for marriage was combined.

Everything showed that, up to that time, Major Yelverton

had refused marriage. His object was clearly not marriage,
but he intimated that he was willing to continue the corre-
spondence, cautioning her, however, as to what might be
tue result of it, She said she had a plan to propose which

would sltisty her conscience, but which she had not the

courage to mention—that, at all events, could not refer to
matrimony, about which there could be nothing which she

could not mention.

The Lord Chancellor—Did he not treat her proposal at
Balaclava as proposals for marriage ?
Mr. Rolt said that there could be little doubt about that
She proposed marriage, and was distinctly refused. The
evidence was that Major Yelverton proposed that they
should be privately married in the Greek Chapel at Balak-
lava, but there was no evidence to bear out that statement,
and Major Yelverton had sworn that he had distinctly
refused marriage. He did not propose to go into the visit to
Scotland, which their lordships had before them yesterday,
but he remarked upon the correspondence which passed, as
utterly inconsistent, even if it was a private marriage. If
it were a secret marriage it was not secret from themselves,
and it was most unlikely that they would correspond with
each other without saying a word about the contract of mar-
riage having taken place bet wean them. That, he thought,
was a safer ground of criticism than observations upon any
particular expressions.

The case was proceeding when we went to press,

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(Thia Day.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
IN RE CAME.

This bankrupt was described as of India Arms, Trinity-
street, Rotherhithe, and this was an application for release.
There were only two debts amuuntiog to £39, and there
was no opposition, but it appeared he was bankrupt some
time ago, but the order of discharge was suspended for
three months which had expired, but he had not taken up
his discharge.
His Honour said that that must be done before the pre-
sent petition could be heard, The bankrupt would not
therefore be released a present,

The bankrupt said that ho had been in prison for two
months,

His Honour said that the detaining creditor could release
him,

Mr Easton, tho creditor, Mid that under tho circuin.
stances he should do so.

IN RR TESPBR.
This bankrupt bad carried on business as a toy dealer,
k 3 , in the Bow-road, and this was a meeting for last ex-
amination and discharge.
Mr J. B. SJrrell, Mark-lane, opposed on the ground that
the bankrupt had executed a fraudulent bill of sale, by
which he had defrauded his creditors of the whole of his
property. From the evidence elicited by Mr. Sorrell at
previous meetings, it appeared that the bankrupt had
executed the bill of sale in favour of his brother-in-law,
who, however, never took possession, and never had the
deed in his possession till after the, bankruptcy, but
a brother of the bankrupt nominally took pos-
session of the property before the bankruptcy,
and there was a mock sale to bankrupt's son, who admitted,
however, he bad not paid for them, nor did he expect to be
called upon to do so.

Mr. Lovall contended that there was gross fraud on the

creditors.

Mr Oldridge, for the official assignee, said there could be
no doubt that there had been collusion, and thought the
case should be adjourned sine die.

His Honour said it was a very hard case, and the exami-
nation would ba adjourned ,sine die, and bankrupt would
never pass until he gave up the property or its value, but
protection would be granted for oxe month to enable him to
do so.

A TRUE LYTTON I—About the only civil remark
addressed from the Government side of the house to the
Opposition, was the following incidental observation of the
Attorney-General's last evening;.—In a very early period
of the negotiations, said the right hon, and learned gentle-
man, there Res a despatch written by Mr. Lytton. He did
know whether that gentleman was relal ed to the right hon.
member for Hertfordshire. [An HON. MEMBER—His son.]
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL --Then he was worthily related,
for his dEspaxtt stowed remarkable ability; and it placed
faithfully before them the difficulty which existed in refer-
ence to Denmark,