The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-14 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, Aug. 13.
(Before Baron Bramwell and a Common Jury.)
PROCTER V. SCOTT.

The plaintiff in this action was Mary Ann Proc-
ter, and she sued the defendant, George John Scott,
who was her brother•-in-law, to recover the sum of
£2B odd for board and lodging and money lent.
The defendant pleaded a variety of pleas, and
among them &Tie that the plaintiff was a married
woman, and that her husband was alive, and, con-
sequently, she had no right to bring the present
action. The case was one of a very extraordinary
nature.

Mr. Denman, Q.C., and Mr. Edward Besley ap-
peared for the plaintiff. Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and
Mr. Prentice were counsel for the defendant.

Mary Ann Procter, the plaintiff, was examined,
and she deposed to the circumstances under which
the debt she demands from the defendant had been
created.

Mr. Hawkins then proceeded to cross-examine her
upon certain matters having reference to the claim ;
but the learned judge interposed, and observed that
if there was anything in the plea of coverture, if
the fact of the plaintiff being a married woman and
that her husband was alive could be proved, there
was an end of her case.

The plaintiff was accordingly cross-examined
upon this point, and in answer to the questions put
to her by Mr. Hawkins, she said—" More than 20
years ago I was married to a man named Richard
Rolling at King's Lynn, Norfolk. I never saw him
after the marriage, and should not know him again
if I were to see him."
Mr. Hawkins—What sort of a man was he ?

Witness—At that time he was a young man, but
I do not recollect whether he was short or tall, or
stout or thin, nor how he was dressed; but I think
he had a blue coat on. (A laugh,)
Mr. Hawkins—Well, I do not know whether or
not it will be agreeable to you, but you shall
have an opportunity of seeing your husband again
before the case is over. (Laughter.)
The plaintiff then went on to state that she left
her husband directly after the marriage, or at all
events on the same evening. She and her husband
went to his father's house, and an altercation took
place between them, and she left him and went back
wwki
father, and she never saw him again.
I only married him to please my friends.
Baron Bramwell—How old were you when this
tomarriagesans—What wes he ?
tooks.He was a fisherman and kept smacks.
place.
Witness—only
fifteen.
Mr. Hawkins—Then how many times have you
been married?
Witness-4 decline to answer such a question as
that.
Mr. Denman observed that if her alleged husband
Rolling was alive she could not have contracted a
marriage.
Baron Bramwell said he was not sure that the
witness was bound to answer the question, because
if she really was married to Rolling and married
another man afterwards,
bigamy.
Mr. Hawkins said she had nothing to fear on
she might be indicted for
that score, for she had been already tried and con-
victed of that offence.
The learned Counsel then put some further ques-
tionsanswer them she said that 12 years ago she was
to the witness in cross-examination, and in
to
tried for bigamy
and convicted, in consequence of
her 1 'ivinf.7 contracted a second marriage with a
man named Johnson. She added that she had only
been married twice—once to this person and once
to Rolling.
_.

-
Baron Bramwell, to the witness—Do you really
mean to say that you know nothing about your first
husband, Rolling, or whether he is alive or dead ?
Witness—l
ha.n) dI do do, my lord. I never inquired after
not know what became of him. (A
la him,ug
Mr. Hawkins said they had got him there, and
the
o i plaintiffgoing t)a back svhonld see him before the case was over.
She would have g
e an opportunity, if she liked, of
with himto King's Lynn, where, as the
story-book said,
they might have children and live
happy ever afterwards. (Laughter.)
Baron Bramwell said if the first husband was
there, they
-a-, better call him at once, and there
had
would be an end of the plaintiff's case.
Pilchard Rolling TM then called, and a middle-