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

sions indicate, and the respondent during the residence
of the respondent in Edinburgh. She left Edinburgh to
avoid the importunities of the appellant to accede to a
consummation of the marriage. She appears to have
been resolved that this should not take place until they
had gone through some religious ceremony in more than a
solemn engagement or a promise to marry. In reference
to tae letter written by the appellant on the subject of
the respondent's supposed marriage with Mr. Shears, the
noble lord said I consider the words indicate that a promise
had teen given in relation to marriage, and that it must
have been either a promise of marriage or else a promise
to -nest the wishes of the respondent by consenting to a re-
ligious ceremony in a Roman Catholic place of worship. It
is argued by the appellant that tLe answer to this letter is
not such as would have been written by the respondent it
there had been a marriage. I cannot concur in that re-
mark. Remembering that the respondent bad refused co-
habitation, that in the language of one of her lettere Pho was
ehrinking from the end she yearns for, it may well bo thouht
she did not know or believe that what had passed was in
law a binding final marriage. The same thing has oceured
in several important cases. From the subsequent acts of the
parties I have drawn this conclusionthat the respondent after
a struggle consented to cohabit with the appellant as as his
wife and to meet him in Ireland for that purpose, depending
upon the promise of the appellant that the religious cere-
mony should be bad in a Roman Catholic chapel. In con-
firmation of this I may refer to the fact that the appellant
purchased a wedding ring at Dublin when on his way to
meet her. This brings us to the most important part of the
case—namely, as to what was said and done at Rostrevor,in
Ireland. I cannot give credit to the respondent when she
affirms that no intercourse took place between them pre-
viously to this, because, I think, the result of the evidence
g at Rostrovor they
cieahthaabt immediately masemdiaanea-nodnwtihfee.irinmmeeyti njudgment the ceremony
should be had in a Roman Catholic chapel. In confirma-
tion of this I may refer to the fact that the appellant pur-
chased a wedding ring at Dublin when on his way to meet
her. This brings us to the most important part of the case
—namely, as to what was said and done at Rostrevor, in
ndent when she
eon. them alfar e lramnad
that. I cnaaniunot te
rgaiavuer
ac
ar etdaiat tpo
at ha
ae rbeestpwo
previ-
ously to this, because, I think, the result of the evidence is
that immediately on their meeting at Rostrevor they co•
habited as man and wife. In my judgment the respondent
instead of denying the fact, had a right to say she had con-
sented to their cohabitation on the faith of the contract in
promise of marriage that took place in Edinburgh, and of the
appellant's assurance that he would no longer object to a cere-
mony in the Roman Catholic place of worship. On the in-
quiry whether the respondent in cohabiting with the appel-
lant relied ore the Scotch contract or promise or on the Irish
ceremony, the respondent is entitled to the effect of this fact,
that she stated to the bishop what had passed between her
and the appellant in Scotland, and was told by the bishop
that this was a valid marriage in the sight of the Catholic
Church, and he saw no advantage in any other marriage
ceremony. But on being pressed by the lady, the bishop
consented that a religious ceremony should be gone through,
considering it would be a renewal et the marriage consent.
The evidence of Mr Mooney corroborates this. At this
point the noble and learned lord condemned the practices of
the priest Mooney in sending a copy of a supposed entry on
the registry of marriages, and for this reason unless he were
corroborated no dependence could be placed upon his evi-
dence. In the case referred to, the bishop and he confirmed
each other, The marriage had been contrasted, and to
satisfy the lady's cousin the ceremony was proceeded with.
After this they lived openly as husband and wife. The
various acknowledgments of the appellant that the respon-
dent was his wife are carefully renumerated by Lord
Curriehill in hill in his judgment. In reference to the
argument of the appellant that both parties knew them to
be necessary only to con and illicit intercourse, the answer
seems to be furnished by some of Major Yelverton's letters,
and it is a significant fact that the appellant has not pro-
duced a single letter of the respondent's addressed to him
since the ceremony at Rotrevor in Ireland. The noble and
learned lord was proceeding to give the opinion of an absent
peer, supposed to be Lord Brougham's, who had desired
him to state that efter a voluminous examination he was
satisfied that there had been in Scotland that exchange of
I consent which constituted marriage.

Lord Chelmsford objected to any reference to the opinion
of the noble and learned lord who was then absent.
The Lord Chancellor said lie was not aware that he was
taking an unusual course. The noble and learned lord, to
whose opinion he had referred, had beard the whole of the
arguments, and it was in consequence of his noble and
learned friend being compelled to leave the house that had
led him to do so. The noble and learned lord then resumed
his judgment, and was of opinion that the consent to cohabit
in Ireland, and the respondent relied upon what had taken
place in Scotland, although it was to be followed by a reli-
gious ceremony. Ho believed that the Roman Catholic
ceremony was a legal solemnisation of marriage, and that
there was and is a legal marriage between the appellant and
respondent, and that they are now legally man and wife.
Lord Wensleydale, who spoke in so low a tone of voice
as to be scarcely audible in the gallery, was understood to
say that, in order to decide whether there had been a
legal marriage, they must enquire what was neces-
sary to constitute a marriage in Scotland. He
thought it was clear that there was no marriage in
Scotland either per verbs de presenti or in futuro. The
noble and learned lord then examined at some length the
evidence, and considered that the evidence of Mr Mooney
was quite insufficient to prove that Major Yelverton
acknowledged it, and that was the only evidence of an
acknowledgment on his part. There was no evidence of a
marriageof oapniyawielinerthatestphee cially in Scotland, and he was
propositions of the respondent
did not consider that there
clearlyhad
d He
been
not been
anypremise of marriage, although there were
many ambiguous statements. They were, however, too
ambiguous to be construed into a promise of marriage. He
maintained.
was of opinion that the decision of the court below ought
to be reversed.
Lord Chelmsford next delivered his judgment. The onus
of proofs he said was upon the respondent. The whole of
the voluminous evidence had been thrown loosely before
their lordships in order apparently that they might extract
from it a marriage on either one of the grounds alleged by
the respondent. It appeared to him that there had been a
great deal of preliminary ma ter imported into the inquiry.
For instance it was hardly
in ascertainingnecessary to occupy t'-,e time of
their lordshipsthe position in life
of the parents cf the respondent. Jf the fact was
proved, the antecedent probability or improbability was
of no use, and all other convictions might be set aside.
Neither was it necessary, he thought, to inquire into the
conduct of the respondent prior to these transactions.
It was clear that there had been a dangerous correspondence
between the parties, but he would not stop to inquire what
Was the motive of the appellant in continuing that corre-
spondence. The conclusion he drew from the early corre-
pondence was, that the interviews at Galata and in
the Crimea raised an assurance in the mind of
the respondent that the appellant would marry
her if certain obstacles were removed, and her expectations
were no doubt heightened by what took place. He believed
that up to this time there had been no promise of marriage
between the parties. The noble and learned lord proceeded
to consider the modes in which marriages might be a
mutual
con-
tracted in Scotland ; Ist, by promise in proctiti;
and 2d, by a written promise of marriage, followed by a
copuia as a result of the promise. He then examined the
allegations of the respondent, in one or other of these ways
she became the wife of the respondent. It was to be ob-
served that in none of their letters they spoke of each other
as husband and wife, indeed, the whole of the correspond-
ence seemed strongly opposed to,any marriage or promise
of marriage. It was not necessary for him to dwell on the
remainder of this correspondence, which was not in the
usual style of epistolary intercourse between husband and
wife. With regard to the visit to Manchester he
a
believed that Manchester was merely rendezvous to
arrange their continental trip, and that the object
of the respondent in visiting the cathedral was merely to
clothe their intercourse with the appearance of a religious
ceremony, and that she had nothing in view of a more
binding nature. Returning to the visit to Ireland, the
noble lord contended that the respondenthad taken everystep
to baffie and perplex the witnesses in reference to the co-
habitation, which had a most important bearing on the
respondent's case. It showed that the meeting in Ire-
land was not with a view to the celebration of a marriage,
bat that the ceremony at Rostrevor was the result
of an afterthought between the parties. He thought it
was abundantly proved that the appellant was a Protestant
within the meaning of the act of Parliament, for they
proved that whenever he attended a place of religious wor-
ship it was in connection with the Protestant Church. He
looked upon Father Mooney's evidence with regard to the
declaration of the appellant as to a former marriage with
much suspicion; but, as;unring ils correctness, and that the