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

THE

CASE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
YELVERTON V. LONGWORTH (OR YELVERTON).
Present—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord
Chelmsford, Lord liingsdown, and Lord Wensleydale.
This morning this case was proceeded with.
Mr. Rolt, 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
t in these letters was said directly or indirectly about a pro-
) raise 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,
),he asked, "How can you suppcso I could desert you whom
I love, for Shears, fur 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 married them,
In that letter she detailed the circumstances of the marriage,
and asked him to append the surnames, hitherto concealeu
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 stfanger, 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
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 long•expected letter, which she
had written at Hull, although she professed to be at
Lunenberg.
Lord Chelmsford thought there was little in that, as she
might have been intending to go abroad, where she might
be confined.
Mr Holt thought that it was clear from her letters that
she was not expecting anything of tho 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 Rill 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.

Mr Rolt described this correspondence with the priest as
the playing of her last card, her last contrivance of fraud.
He contended that many a person had been placed at the
a the whole of this
ctrraimnsinacatliobnar bfoerinag laesssusbetrliemlasndoffrancegerous fraud. The
priest, he urged, was not a credible witness, as he thought
was proved by what he himself wrote to the respondent
marriage. That
a and it was clear
mabaoruritatghee
trhegeisatpepr
earladnttheenwriirtenleyssdeesntoiedthe
that directly she declared there had been a private marriage
Major Yelverton determined that he would have no further
lyTh thing relied upon
communication with her. At that time there was nothing
saidbein
g rh
about
e them amarriage
iScotch y
themarriage, lrish rthrieesotnly .
There was another
point to which he feat 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
not believe that they would attach any material importance
to it. The learned counsel then proceeded to sum up the
results of his lengthened arguments, contending that in none
of the correspondence was there any proof of a contract,
or even promise of marriage—that if any proceedings took
place before the Irish priest at all, they did not partake of
any religious character, but wore merely got up as a scene
for some particular psrpose—that there was no promise cf
marriage either at Galata, Balaclava, Edinburgh, or
Ireland.

The L-ird Chanellor—Have you any Proof when the en-
gagement of Major Ytiverton with Mrs. Forbes began?
Mr. Rolt—No, thew is not; but we know that when that
engagement began all intercourse with Miss Longworth (the
respondent) ceased. The mlrriage With Mrs. Forbes took
flee° on the 26th of Jane.

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

Mr Dolt, 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 be 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.
(Betcre the Judge Ordinary).
PRICE v. PRICE.

This was a petition presented by the wife, praying for a
di6solution of marriage on the ground of desertion and
adultery.

The parties were is humble circumstances, and carried on
a small business in the London-road, Southwark. The
quarrels between them were frequent, and the treatment
she received was very bad, On a cold winter night,
on one occasion, the respondent came home in
a very violent temper, turned petitioner out of doors,
and sold off all the home,
leaving her without a shelter.
She had to walk to Kingston, to her mother's house, in
order to obtain a lodging, Witnesses have been examined
to prove various acts of cruelty and the other allegations
in the petition.

His lordship grsarnAtesdner P. st
amdecreen4iNsiD.
EN.
This was a suit instituted by the husband against the
wife for dissolution on th 3 ground of adultery and bigamy.
The parties were domestic servants in two families
residing at Lamberhurst, 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 quarrels arose in consequence of the
petitioner discovering familiarities having occurred between
her and the butcher, and he became jealous. The parties
separated in consequence of their disagreement, and some
years after it was discovered she had married a man named
Andrews, having represented herself as a widow.
Witnesses were called to prove the cohabitation of the
respondent with Andrews at ix
dente,inld'ohm ejnsateidecegsse: necessary in other eases
peti-
tioner, said he had some doubts about the circumstances
havingighhimbeseeeliflexilamEinsseedx.the peti-
attending the first separation, but as the parties were both
ahrey'did not think the same strict evi
could be obtained, and
tnerefore he should decree a rule nisi.

tdedof
HODSON V, iiODBOll AND I,otrvET.
te m b e riirtelBreBB3P,° respondent
by the husband for dissolution
adultery.
was an attorney residing in
Salisbury-street, Strand, and
Tdo
afhulTem,
ghhmhaei
rstarepriwrear
itgaeiasfet
gi aoaoe
answetutorehioitilekni.
kngtpusrhotloiaiuswteunecnaossneol
theicit°t 4th of October, 1854, at
residing at Cambridge,
kplaceupo on to September,
of the respondent's conduct
Trumpington Church, Cambridge,
et,int waasthe
Cohabitation followed
sugar planter in the
sepa-
rationawnifdh t
12 too continuedo
co-respondent, the son of a
Mauritius, who had come. to England
with the view of en-
tering the legal profession. The 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, whero the co-respondent visited her.
The respondent after that went to Diep,t-'ne
) where it was
alleged the circumstances that led to the institution of
these proceedings occurred.
d •
On the part of the corespondent a denial was pleaded.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

Liverpool Cotton Market—This Day.

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