The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-10 00:00:00

THE

CASE.

The Lord Chancllor—Have you any proof when the en.
gagernent of Mejor Yelverton with Mrs. Forbes began?
Mr. Rolt—No, there is not; but we know that when that
rre
enisagcseognrocinme
tnehnote
c2be6eag,
shae n
ofd
. J all
Juneintercourse
with Miss Longworth (+he
pmarriage
with Mrs. Forbes took

Mrs Yelverton's two lady friends arrived at five minutes
before twelve o'clock, bac Mrs Yelverton herself was not
present,

Mr Rolt, in concluding his speech, said it was no part
of his duty to vindicate the sin of Major Yelverton before
God or society, but he most earnestly protested and insisted
that he had not been guilty of fraud or deception to this
woman. Listening to her artful tales he was led away, but
directly he saw that her drift was marriage he abandoned
her, She threw herself upon him in every way, and was
really his seducer, for he had repeatedly said he would
have nothing to do with her except on terms of illicit

connexion.
Sir Hugh Cairns followed on the same side.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary).
PRICE V. PRICE.

This was a petition presented by the wife, praying for a
dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and
adultery.
' The parties were in humble circumstances, and carried on
a small business in the London-road, Southwark. The
quarrels between them were frequent, and the treatment
on one occasion, the respondent came home in
she received was vera
very violent temper, turned petitioner out of doors,
y bad. On a cold winter night,
STAND Ir.
and sold off all the home, leaving her without a shelter.
She had to walk to Kingston, to her mother's house, in
to prove various acts of' cruelty and the other allegations
order to obtain a lodging.
in the petition.
His lordship granted a decree nisi.
WitnessessTlNp haveENs been examined
I
This was a suit instituted by the husband against the
wife for dissolution on the ground of adultery and bigamy.
The parties were domestic servants in two families
residing at Lanaberhurst, the husband being a footman and
the respondent a housemaid. The marriage took place
about 20 years ago, and witnesses were called to prove that
for about a year or so they agreed very well together.
Shortly after that time
petitioner discovering fame iarities havtng
withwerAe entleedwstoatoccurred between
her and the butcher, and he became jealous. The parties
quarrels arose in consequence of the
separated in consequence of their disagreement, and some
years alter it was discovered she had married a man named
Andrews, having
rePresenfed herself as a widow.
Pliroivgehb
The Judge Ordinary, having
himself examined the peti-
tioner, said he had some doubts about the circumstances
res\pVointndeensstesthe,ec
h, cohabitationiin
E sBex .of the
attending the first separation but as the parties were both
in domestic service, he did not think the same strict evi
deuce, necessary in other cases, could be obtained, and
therefore he should decree a rule nisi.
HODSON V. HODSON AND LOUVET.
This was a. suit instituted by the husband for dissolution
of marriage on the ground of adultery.
The pe itioner in this case was an
attorney, residing in
Salisbury-street, Strand, anci the respondent was the
daughter of a well-known solicitor residing at Cambridge
The marriage took place on the 4th of October, 1854, at
Trumpington Church, Cambridge. Cohabitation followed
and continued up to September, 1863, when a sepa-
ration took place on account of the respondent's conduct
eo-respondent, the
with the son of a sugar planter in the.
Mauritius, who had come to England with the view of en-
tering
the legal profession. ri heL co-respondent on his
arrival in England went to reside at the house of Dr Poland,
who had married a sister of the respondent, and by that
means became acquainted with Mrs. Hodson. The respon-
dent was of
a restless disposition, and objected to living en-
tirely in Loudon, and, consequently, a residence was taken
at Tunbridge-wells, where the co-respondent visited her.
The respondent after that went to Dieppe,
where it was
alleged the circumstances that led to the institution of
these proceedings occurred.
ondent a
On the part of te co-real) .
en denial was pleaded.
The case was proceeding wu we went to press.

Liverpool Cotton Market—This Day.

Market with a tendency to higher prices
for h
Stock much reduced. Sales
teb better
steady,ter staples.
probably about 8,000 bales.

WEEKLY COTTON REPORT.
perQiub.otaaltliroonuenfdo.r American are raised id

ty, are greatly tending
the week, with
_
except
tdiorAmerican,
all
American, which,
from
little T h Thechange
extremeei tn hp raiscebses,ecenaxresceti
upwards, being Id to id dearer than this day week.
Slles of the week, 52,860 bales, including 5,734
Wes for speculation and 10,821 for exportation.
Actual export, 13,766 bales. Import of the week,
21,605 bales. Estimated stock, 297,484 ba'es.

DESTRUCTION OF bIIEEP IN IRELAND.—A Par-
liamentary return states that no less than 7,324 sheep are
supposed, or at least reported, to have been killed by dogs
in Ireland in the year 1863. The return is made to a con
siderable extent on information derived from the owners of
the sheep, and it is the opinion of the epustabulary that in
some parts many of the sheep were otherwise destroyed,
either by depredators or by mountain foxes end badgers.
MR. J. E. MILLAIS, R.A. E ect, has undertaken
to furnish the cartoons, which are not to be in the Gothic
style, for the decration of six important windows in Wor-
cester College, Oxford, with stained glass.

MR. LEIGHTON, who took the world by storm
with his " Procession of Cimabue," and has continued to
work on a large scale since that time, is now executing a
fresco in Lyndhurst Church, Hants,

HOUSE OF LORDS.
' YEiVERTO:st V, LONGWORTH (OR YELVERTON).
Present—Tee Lord Chancellor, Lard Brougham, Lord
Chelmsford, Lord liingsdown, and Lord Wensleydale.
This morning this case was proceeded with.
Mr. Bolt, Q.C,, proceeded with his address. He quoted
from the respondent's letters with a view to show the im-
possibility and positive untruth of her statement. Nothing
• in these letters was said directly or indirectly about a pro-
mise of marriage, which would undoubtedly have been men-
tioned had there been such a promise. What her real
position was, he thought, was clear from one of her own
letters, in which she said, " Who can define our undefinable
position ?" In another letter, in which Major Yelverton
congratulated her on her supposed marriage with Mr Shears,
she asked,'" Ho w can you suppose I could desert you whom
I bye, for Shears, for whom I don't care ?" There was no
allusion to any promise of marriage. The learned counsel
referred to the letter the respondent wrote to the Catholic
clergyman in Ireland who was said to have mart ied them,
In that letter she detailed the eir, umstances of the marriage,
and asked him to append the surnames, hitherto concealed
from him, to his register of the marriage, giving as her
reason that she was abroad, and as she was in expectation of a
little st, anger, she wished to have a proper register, inas-
much as there would be some difficulty in the baptism at
Lunenburg, where she represented herself to be. She repre-
sented to the priest how thankful she was to him, and that
through his kind intercession another human being might
be brought into the Church of Christ who might otherwise
da
tte hnodui n
have gone astray. The priest, in reply to her pathetic
letter, sent her the certificate, and expressed the delight he
had felt in receiving her ion
g. expected letter, which she
had written at Hull, although she professed to be at
Lunenberg.
Lortd have hel
beens for i a
ght there was little in that, as she
might
be confined, to go abroad, where she might
Mr Bolt thought that it was clear from her letters that
miCm
she was not expecting anything of the kind. Moreover, she
asked to have her letters addressed to "Miss Longworth,"
she having no unmarried sister.
The Lord Chancellor—What did the priest mean by the
long-expected letter ?
Mr R ,it thought it was quite clear that a letter could not
have been expected.
Lord Chelmsford thought otherwise. It was very pro-
bable that when the marriage took place the respondent
thanked the priest, and promised that she would write to
him.

the playing of her last card, her last contrivance of fraud.
with the priest as
B eMcontended
e s
that
e dm tehniys correspondence
person
had baen placed at the
criminal bar for a less serious Offence, the whole of this
transaction being a subtle and dangerous fraud. The
eruderggbiesy:lrvwhaanastdnhtheteahwicimrtensdeeielbfsieWes t o the
witness, as he thought
Wrote to the respondent
~ denied, and it was clear
that directly she declared there had been a private marriage
Major Yelverton determined that he would have no further
mawpbraaoisreursitpta'rtghohevee the appellant entirely
communication with her. At that time there was nothing
said about the Scotch marriage, the only thing relied upon
being the marriage by the Irish priest. There was another
point to which he felt bound to refer, that was the alleged
admission of the appellant to Miss Braddon, that he had
contracted a marriage with the respondent. When their
lordships read through the evidence of that witness, he did
material importance
proceeded to sum up the
.conoeeyntending that in none
any proof of a contract,
et—hetrheat if any proceedings took
rteos noti
13 t
lb. t es l
ofiTe vhheei
e learned thatle n g theyt
h eonoeud ns would
arguments,
at til ea ne h p any
oorf
othveencoprrroemspiosendoetn
mcearwriaasg
place betore the Irish priest at all, they did not partake of
any religious character, but were Merely got up as a scene
for some particular purpose—that there was no promise cf
marriage either at Galata, Balaclava, Edinburgh, or
Ireland.