The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE, Feb. 24.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord Chief Justice
Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
EPPS V. MORRIS.

This was a singular case. It was an action by a
medical man to recover from the defendant for at-
tendances upon a lady to whom he had been married.
The defence was that at the time he married her
she was married to another person then still living,
so that her second marriage was bigamous and void.
To this it was replied that the defendant had held
her out as his wife to the world, and that therefore
he was as much liable for her necessary debts as if
she was really his wife.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. A. Wills were for
the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. J.
Brown were for the defendant. _ _

The history of the case is remarkable. In 1841
the lady, at the early age of 17, was married to her
first husband, from whom a few years afterwards
she was divorced a mensa et thoro. In 1846 she
went through the ceremony of marriage with the
defendant, who knew the fact of the former mar-
riage, but supposed that the divorce dissolved the
marriage, and made her free to marry again. They
lived together as man and wife until the year 1854.
They then separated, and she has since lived by
herself in lodgings, bearing his name and having an
allowance from him—first of not less than £l,OOO,
then of £5OO, and ultimately of £250 a year. This
money was sent to her down to the present time by
the defendant's attorney, under the name of Mrs.
Morris. The plaintiff's bill was £127 for attendance
during the years 1861 and 1862. The fact that the
former, or rather the true, husband was alive at the
time of the second marriage was proved. It did
not appear that the plaintiff knew of the defendant's
marriage with the lady, but he said he knew her as
Mrs. Morris.

The lady was not called as a witness.
At the close of the plaintiff's ease

The Lord Chief Justice said he do.ubted whether
there was any case to go to the jury. The divorce
was not a vinculo matrzmonsi, but only a mensa et
thoro, and the defendant was not living with the
lady at the time.
Mr. Sergeant Parry strongly urged that there
was evidence that the defendant allowed her to bear
his name, and thus held her out to the world as his
wife.

The Lord Chief Justice observed that the plaintiff
could see that the lady (even if he supposed her to
be married) was living apart from her husband, and
that should have put him upon inquiry. However,
he would not withdraw the case from the jury.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine briefly addressed the
jury for the defendant, dwelling strongly on the
tact that the plaintiff knew nothing of the defen-
dant and made no inquiries after a husband.
Mr. Sergeant Parry addressed the jury forcibly

in reply on the part of the plaintiff. fie Urged that
here there had been an actual marriage between the
parties, and they had lived together for years as
man and wife, and the defendant to this very time
recognised her and addressed her by his name, nor
had ho ever publicly in any way disavowed the
marriage. That being so, he had sent her into the
world clothed as a wife was with his credit. It
was quite different from the ordinary case of a
mistress.

The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up the case
to the jury, said the sole question for them was
whether at the time of the attendances the defen-
dant allowed the lady to hold herself out as his wife.
No doubt ns long as they were living together that
would be so. But so soon as a man separated him-
self from a mistress and ceased to live with her, of
course that implied holding her out as his wife was
put an end to. The question was whether, when a
tradesman or a medical man found a woman living
by herself, and chose to trust her without making
any inquiry, he could make liable for her debts
any one with whom she had formerly lived as his
mistress. It had not appeared that the plaintiff
knew, as a fact, the actual marriage between the
parties.
The jury at once found for the defendant.