The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 24, 1864.

TIE YELVERTON MARRIAGE CASE,

HOUSE OF LORDS-THIS DAY.

YELVERTON V. YELVERTON (OTHERWISE LONGWORTIL:
Lords present :—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham,

and Lords Chelmsford, Kingsdown, and Wensleydale.
The arguments in this case were resumed by

The Lord Advocate, who continued his address from
Tuesday last, and after some general remarks upon the
correspondence between the parties, said the whole
case resolved itself into three stages, the first of
which were that both parties were substantially
betrothed. There could be no doubt that there was
a mutual understanding between them as to their sen-
timents being congenial. In the second stage there had
been an honourable courtship with the object of marriage,
but that towards the close of the period when the promise
was to be carried out, difficulties were suggested by Major
Yelverton entirely bearing upon money matters and his
proposing a secret marriage, which proposal was resisted by
the lady. The third stage was to overcome the scruples of
the lady to a secret marriage. There was a promise and
consent of marriage in Scotland, the consent and intercourse
taking place in Edinburgh, and the ipromise of marriage
being carried out by the ceremony in Ireland. From
these facts _the; legal result ..was, first, that there
was a promise and subsequent intercourse in Scotland,
and, secondly, not only a promise in Scotland and marriage
applicable to the period, as shown by the evidence and sub-
sequent acknowledgment, and ultimately carried out by the
Irish marriage, which was a valid marriage. The two first
questions were sufficient to show that there had been a com-
plete promise and marriage. This was not the place to
diseuss what had been the policy which led to the matri-
monial law of Scotland; it was sufficient to observe that it
did agree. The general matrimonial law of Europe was
drawn from the civil law, and after wards sub-
stantially framed and modelled by the canon law,
and founded on the general maxim that consent made
marriage. How consent was to be proved was
a question upon which Christian nations had differed ;
some had departed more widely than others from the
general, civil, and canon law, and he did not think that
any country had differed more widely than England.
Lord Brougham said he did not thick that England
had departed more widely from the canon and civil law
than France; by the French law the consent of the
parents or guardians was necessary.
_ _

The Lord Advocate continued—There was no doubt the
Law of Marriage was defined under the Code Napoleon,
buc in all cases the principle of the law was that there must
be a mutual promise. The learned Lord Advocate then
cited the dictum of Lord Stair, as reported in various cases,
which constituted a promise and marriage in Scotland.
There was, in the opinion of every Scotch lawyer, as to
whether after the de.th of one of the parties the issteurn
matrimonium could set up the promise of marriage, but
there was no question that during the existence of the par-
ties the marriage was indissoluble, and that no subsequent
marriage—whether regular or irregular—would alter that
position. Here there was a clear promise of marriage at
Gibraltar, and subsequent promise at Edinburgh, and ac-
knowledged in writing. The acknowledgment was not
necessary if there was a promise.
Lord Brougham—Do you mean to say if there was
a promise before two witnesses there was no necessity for
an acknowledgment in writing.
The Lord Advocate—Yes, here the first promise at
Galata was broken off but renewed in Scotland.

Lord Kingsdown said he did not see that there was
anything in the Record, as to the interruption of the
promise. _ _

The Lord Advocate—lt was alleged that the promise had
been broken off and then renewed. Ho then proceeded at
great length to go through the evidence and correspondence
to show that all through the correspondence Major Yelver-
ton had expressed himself in the way that showed more
clearly that he had made the promise in Edinburgh, and
done all that he had promised by the marriage in Ireland.
The learned Lord Advocate concluded his arguments by
stating that it was not competent in the Scotch courts for
the parties to be examined viva voce, but it was competent
for that house to do so, and, on the part of Mrs Yelverton,
she was ready to undergo the ordeal.
The Lord Chancellor said he was sure he exprmed the
feelings of their lordships in saying they were much in-
debted
to the Lord Advocate for his speech, and asked Mr
Holt how long it would take him to reply ?
Mr Rolt said he could not say.
Lord Brougham—l suppose you could do so in a day ?
Mr Rolt said he would endeavour to do so.
Their Lordships then consulted a short time in private at
the conclusion.

The Lord Chancellor said he was called away elsewhere,
there was business before the judges on Monday next, and
they could not find a day when to hear Mr Rolt, but he
would take care he had two days' notice,

The house then adjourned.
Mrs Yelverton and her lady friends sat as usual in the
reporters' gallery.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day).

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(114 fore Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)
BRLMRIDGE V. LATIMER-LIBEL.

This was an action brought by Mr Bremridge against
Mr Latimer, the w.:11-known newspaper proprietor in
Exeter, for libel. The proceedings arose cut of a series of
articles published in defendant's newspaper antecedent to
and during the election, at which Mr Bremridge repre-
sented the Conservative interest, and Mr Lloyd the Liberal.
The proceedings terminated in the return of Mr Bremridge,
but he was afterwards unseated by the report of the commit-
tee appointed by the House of Commons to try the merits
of a petition against the return. Mr Bremridge complained
that the articles reflected upon his private character, and
were altogether beyond the bounds allowed for criticism of
the actions of public men. The details have already been
published, as the facts were repeated when the matter was
before the court while sitting in banco.
The examination of Mr Bremridge occupied the whole of
the early part of the day.

COURT OF DI VORCE.
(Before Sir J, P, Wilde.)
PERCIVALL V. PERCIVALL.

This was a suit instituted by the wife for a dissolution of
marriage, on the ground of her husband's adultery and
desertion.

Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Searle were for the petitioner,
and there was no defence to the suit.
Several witnesses were examined, from whose evidence it
appeared that the parties, who were in a respectable station
of life, were married on the 11th February, 1847, and
there was one child, issue of the marriage, which is still
living. The adultery alleged was committed with an un-
married female named Worth, in 1858, and subsequently
with a married woman named Clarke. The respondent
denied the adultery with Clarke, but took no notice of the
charge relative to Worth, by whom he had a child, and
who stated that he seduced her by promising to marry her,
she not being aware that he was already married. In
1859 the respondent was imprisoned for debt in the Queen's
Bench, and since then he had been in considerable d:fil-
culties, whirl made if, impossible to serve him for some
time with a citation in the cause. Long before the year
just mentioned the respondent ceased to cohabit with his
wife, who, however, saw him occasionally, and supplied
him with different sums of money.
The case stood over for the production of additional evi•
donee.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fano.)
IN RE COLLYER.
This bankrupt was described as of Oakley-street, Lam-
beth, tool manufacturer, and now came up for his order of
discharge.

Mr J. B. Sorrell, Mark lane, supported; Mr Brough
oppooed.

Mr Sorrell said that the bankrupt had passed his exami-
tation, and he could not conceive any ground of opposition
to his having his order of discharge. He came before the
court on the 20th of February last, and had filed a good
cash: and deficiency account as required and reported on
by Mr Gardiner, who had been appointed by the Court to
assist him. The total indebtedness amounted to i7OO, and
a vory large amount had been realised.
Mr Brough said that the bankrupt passed his examina-
tion on the faith that he would give the residences of cer-
tain debtors.

Mr Sorrell said that would be impossible, they were men
working under contractors and moved from place to place,
but bankrupt had offered to go with the assignee to the
masters and endeavour to trace the men.
His Honour asked what had actually been received for
the estate ?
Mr Brough said £l2O, but the official assignee said there
hal been other money's received,
Mr Brough still pressed for an adjournment,
Mr:Sorrell submitted that it would be a great hardship on
the bankrupt and the creditors to fritter away a small estate
by these frequent adjournments, which could not lead to a
beneficial result. The creditors were so satisfied with the
bankrupt that Messrs. Cocks, Robarts, and Co., who were
creditors for £72, offered to stock his shop, and other
creditors were equally friendly.
His Honour said ho should grant the order of discharge
on the bankrupt undertaking to 'give all the information in
his power to the assignees,

IN RE ROSSITOR AND LUZARNI.
These bankrupts were merchants in Moo Tate, City, and
Sydney. The debts are stated at £77,000; assets, X 3,000.
A dividend has been paid in Sydney of 3s in the pound, and
the same is payable to creditors who have sent out powers
of attorney. A further dividend of 2s Cd is expected.
An adjournment was taken for further communication
from Sydney,

GENTLEMAN BITTEN RY AN ADDER.—Yesterday
a party of friends left the district of Bethnal.green for
Riddiesdown, in Surrey, and while a number of females
were sitting in the meadow they were alarmed by the ap
pearance of a large adder. Mr. Wellington, of Club•row,
seized the animal with his hand, and in a moment ho felt
he was bitten. The limb became painful and swollen, and
when he reached town he proceeded to the London Hospital,
where, it i 3 enectvd, the arm will have to be ansputqAtd,