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 ;,nensa 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 pluintiff 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 case,
The Lord Chief Justice said he doubted whether
there was any case to go to the jury. The divorce
was not a vinculo nzatrtmonti, 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 ho 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.
Dlr. Sergeant Ballantine briefly addressed the
jury for the defendant, dwelling strongly on the
fact 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. He 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 be 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 vs 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.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before the Lord

Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)
_____

BEVAN V. THE COUNTESS OF IVALDEGRANE.
Mr. Karslake, Q.C., the Hon. G. Denman, Q.C.,
and Mr. E. V. Bullen were counsel for the plain-
tiff; Mr. Montague Smith, Q.C., Mr. Coleridge,
Q.C., Mr. Henry James, Q.C., and Mr. C. Brown
(Chancery Bar) appeared for the defendant.
This was an action against the Countess of Wal-
degrave, in her representative capacity as admini-
stratrix of the late earl, her husband, to recover a
sum of £1,500.

The plaintiff was formerly the solicitor of Lord
Waldegrave, but ceased to be so in the year 1842,
when a Mr. Pearson, an attorney, and a Dr. Daniel
investigated the accounts between his lordship and
the plaintiff, and determined that the former should
pay to the latter a sum of £2,200. Instead of a
payment being made in cash, Lord and Lady Wal-
degrave assigned to the plaintiff the next presenta-
tion of the living of Borley, in Essex, by deed,
which covenanted among other things that if the
plaintiff should be prevented, from any cause, from
presenting on the next vacancy he should be paid
£1,500. In addition to the deed the plaintiff re-
ceived the celebrated silver bell by Cellini, which
was valued at £350, and his lordship's promissory
note for £650, making altogether an equivalent to
£2,500. On the death of the late incumbent of
Borley, the presentation not falling into the hands
of the plaintiff, he brought the present action for a
breach of the covenant.
For the defence it was stated that the deed had
been given up by the plaintiff to the defendant. In
the accounts between the late Earl and the plaintiff
a bill of exchange for £1,160, which was then out-
standing, had not been included. This was drawn
by the plaintiff, accepted by the late lord, and en-
dorsed to Mr. Lahee, who discounted it, giving value
for it to the plaintiff. Mr. Lahee brought an action
against Lord Waldegrave on the bill, the plaintiff
being also liable. In consideration of Lady Wal-
degrave paying the amount to Lahee, the plaintiff
gave up to her ladyship the deed granting the pre-
sentation. In the settlement of accounts between
Pearson, Daniel, and the plaintiff, the latter had
omitted his liability upon the bill, having, in fact,
received the money and not paid it over to Lord
Waldegrave.
A great deal of documentary evidence was put in
on either side during the trial, and it is unneces-
sary to hamper the facts of the case with it now.
Mr. Beavan was called and said—l was solicitor
to the late Lord Waldegrave from 1838 to 1842,
and was intimately acquainted with him down to
the time of his marriage with the Countess. He
was always in embarrassed circumstances, and It
advanced him moneys for the purpose of paying
executions. All these transactions are contained in
a deed of release of 1845. In 1840 his lordship went
to Scotland. There were at that time some pro-
ceedings pending relative to
others
ati assault
ce,
in which Capt. Duff andwereitno npllchaetpedoli
.
received letters from Lord Waldegrave almost daily,
In January, 1841, I received a letter from him from
Edinburgh (he was then married) depicting in
strong terms their pecuniary difficulties and urging
for money to get them out of this " horrible
hibl s hdoel
be hole."
Lady Waldegrave also wrote upon the same subject.
Lord Waldegrave wrote then saying that
were £l,OOO, and he must have that sum to get out
of Edinburgh. I received another letter for advice
as to their coming to live in town and where to go,
as there were very few taverns at which he was not
known, and he should be surrounded by friendsi

—..4d.
STAMPED ....scl.

creditors, cads, &e. Lord Waldegrave came to town
in March, 1841, and proceedings for the assault
upon the police were continued and came on for trial
at the Queen's Bench, and, under the advice of his
counsel, he pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to six
months' imprisonment, with a fine of £2OO. The
imprisonment Lord Waldegrave underwent. I ad-
vanced the money for the fine.
Mr. Karslake read the deed of release executed
between the witness and Lord Waldegrave on the
settlement of accounts between them.
Mr. Montague Smith cross-examined the plaintiff,
who said—When Lady Waldegrave was sued upon
the £1,160 bill, her ladyship's solicitor, Mr. Pearson,
said that the debt was mine, but it never was denied
that Lord Waldegrave had the money, and the fact
never was contested. At the time of the trial for
the assault on the police Lord Waldegrave screened
other parties more culpable than himself, as he said
he would suffer any privation rather than give up
their names. I first heard of the death of the in-
cumbent of Borley in 1862, but I. had previously
tried to sell the presentation.
The evidence on both sides having been concluded,
Mr. M. Smith summed up the defendant's evi.
dente.

Mr. Karslake replied upon the whole case.
His Lordship summed up, and the jury found for
the defendant.
Several points of law are reserved for future dis-
cussion.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS---Feb. 24.

(Before the Assistant-Judge.)
CONVICTION OF NOTORIOUS FELONS.

John Barker, aged 49, and William Davis, 26,
were indicted for feloniously receiving four table-
cloths, and other articles, the property of George
Wallace, well knowing the same to have been stolen.
Mr. Orridge prosecuted; Mr. Cooper defended
Barker ; Davis was undefended.
Evidence having been adduced, his lordship
summed up, and the jury found the prisoners guilty.
Mr. Orridge said that Davis was a ticket-of-leave
man, he having been tried at the Westminster
Sessions on the 14th of August, 1857, and sentenced
to be kept in penal servitude, which sentence was
not yet expired.
George Lockyer, the prison officer, proved that
since Davis had been liberated with a ticket-of-
leave he had been twice convicted, and sentenced
on each occasion to he imprisoned for three months.
The Assistant-Judge said he should like to know
if anything was known as to Barker.
Inspector Defter, of the S division, said he had
known him for 10 years, and had seen him re-
peatedly in the company of thieves, coiners, and
burglars of the worst description. He was connected
with the thieves engaged in Lord Foley's robbery,
and with Greene and another, who were convicted
of burglary and assaulting an old lady at Padding-
ton-green, and sentenced to be kept to penal servi-
tude for life. His house had been watched for
years as a place where stolen goods were received.
The Assistant-Judge sentenced each of the pri-
soners to 10 years' penal servitude.

A JUVENILE CRIMINAL.
Henry Spinks, 12, was indicted for stealing 10
boxes, an egg cup, and other articles, of the value
of 175., the property of the justices of the peace for
the county of Middlesex.
He pleaded guilty.
The prisoner was tried in this court, convicted,
and sentenced to be kept in Feltham Reformatory
for three years. Before that period had expired he
absconded from the school, but subsequently re•
turned and stole the articles in question.
Captain Brooks, superintendent of Feltham In-
dustrial School, said the term for which prisoner
was sent there was not expired by six months, but
he had broken out and had got away. After he left
he stole some tools, and having drilled holes with a
bit round a panel, he was able to push it through.
He committed offences frequently while he was in
the school. In June he broke into the housekeeper's
room, and stole several articles from a closet under
very aggravated circumstances. In October he ab-
sconded, taking with him several articles of clothing,
and in December last he was punished for stealing
a pair of boots from the shoemaker's shop. In con-
sequence of his very bad character, they would not
receive him back into the reformatory.
The Assistant Judge sentenced the prisoner to be
kept in penal servitude for three years, which sen-
tence would be accompanied by a recommendation
that he should be sent to Parkhurst Prison, where
the discipline is more rigid than in a reformatory.
(Before Mr. Payne.)
ASSAULT UPON A CHILD.

John Johnson, 44, was indicted for unlawfully
and indecently assaulting Mary Ann Johnson, his
own child, 11 years of age.
He was found guilty.
Mr. Payne sentenced him to be imprisoned and
kept to hard labour for two years.
AN INCORRIGIBLE THIEF.
Henry Jackson, 28, was indicted for stealing an
umbrella.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
Luke Birch, a police-constable, said he knew him
as James Peck, and he was convicted in this court
in 1847 or 1848, and sentenced to six months' im-
prisonment for garden robbery. Witness was pre-
sent at the sessions of this court in 1852, 'when he
was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 12 months'
imprisonment for stealing linen off a line.
Mr. Payne sentenced the prisoner to be kept in
penal servitude for ten years.