The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, 14014D0N, FRED ta Y EVEN. ING, JUNE 27, 1862.

rations to her screw shaft, reboring of her stern-
tube. Everything proved to be in good working
order, and fit for sea service. The ship is now being
WO to convey to Canada the wives and children of
soldiers belonging to the regiments recently sent
there.

The following appointments were made yester-
day at the Admiralty :—Commander Mountford J.
L. Peile, to the Royal Adelaide ; John Henry Ellis,
promoted to the rank of master; Sub-Lieut. W. C.
Karslake, confirmed to the Trafalgar ; Sub-Lieut.
George R. Keating and Sub-Lieut. W. E. K.
Cockeli, confirmed to the Warrior; Sub-Lieut. T.
H. Larcom, confirmed to the Chanticleer; Sub-
Lieut. Day H. Bosanquet, confirmed to the Black
Prince ; Sub-Lieut. Henry C. Wallis, confirmed
to the Geyser; J. A. Kitt, first class assist.-engi-
neer, to the-Sanspareil ; W. Williamson, confirmed
as second-class assist..engineer, and appointed to
the Euryalus; W. E. Prescott, acting second-class
assist.-engineer, to the Asia, as supernumerary ;
Charles T. S. Kevern, staff surg., to the Wellesley ;
Dr. Lewis C. Urquhart, surg., to the Black Prince;
W. K. Harriott, assist.-paymaster to the Euryalus,
as supernumerary; Francis D. B. Smith, clerk, to
the Excellent ; Robert N. Haly, clerk, the Eurya-
; W. C. S. Hyne, assist.-clerk, to the Cam-
bridge; W. F. Crosathwaite and Francis M. Steele,
assistant•clerks, to the Euryalus, as supernu-
meraries.

married a niece of mine, a daughter of Lo. "rl. Avon-
more. I lave three daughters and a sena o ho are
all grown up. One of the daughters and It m re-
side at home with me. Lord Avonmore has; t son.
the Hon. Major Yelverton. I became acqual intecl
with the pursuer in London in the year 1860. Pre-
vious to that I heard that she claimed to hi 3 the
wife of my nephew. For a considerable time I was
under the impression that Theresa Longwortl t was
a person of improper character. I received a copy
of Galignani, and it contained a short report of the
trial in Dublin. Seeing the evidence she swore to,
and a certificate' by Father Mooney, I saw t hat the
ceremony was a conSrmation of a previous marriage,
and I inquired whether there was such a ceremony ,
and was satisfied there was none. When at -7)
ae said he
in the hotel there, a person came inquirinp for. M.
knew
Yelverton. 'When the person entered
was wrong, and that he came to see Mgrs. Theresa
Yeltvresrotnoni
wanted
ed wast o goingsee.
Taea.-way
said
he Mrs.
when
a p
I said he was
Theresa Yelverton, and also Major Yelverton_. This
was a Mr. Goodlet, a merchP met in London. I a:lied
upon him in London, and he said, would I liar, 44 any
objections to see the lady ? I said not, and I met
her at his office. I saw her adore than once. This
was in October, 1860. I 'saw her at her aunt's
house in London. ,I. went over to Dublin to ascer-
tain the exact state of the case. I attended the
whole of the trial in Vublin. I had no confidential
communication with her Ie gal adviser. I uszy.ally
staid in the Gresham hotel, 'but I did not stay (here
then, as Mrs. Yelverton was :there. The resul'c of the
trial was to make me accept h eras Major Yelverton'
wife. I wrote to my wife t. hat we sho ald do so,
and I invited her to my houtie. She ultimately
came and paid me a visit. She did not -visit me the
first time I asked her. She came and -visited me in
Nov. or Dee, 1861. She was with Me on last New-
year's-day. My wife and son Land daughter were
there. My neighbours were called and-introduced
to her. She visited in the neighta aurhood, at the
clergyman's, Mr. Protheroe. Her in troduction was
through me and my family. While she was with
me, I remember receiving a lette] from the de-
fender, Mr. Walker. I was very I rauch distressed
by receiving such a letter, and did,trot know how to
act. I produced the letter to the I 'finally at dinner
time or lunch time. The pursuer we .s present when
I produced it. I handed it to her, at I thought she
ought to see it as her character wa, a attacked. I
thought it my duty to show it to I ter. I said to
her you see, notwithstanding all that was disproved
at the trial, what is said about it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Young—Lord Avonmore
is 73 years of age. He has only one sou alive,
Major Yelverton. lam aware my nephew married
Mrs. Forbes in 1858. I believe there is a son of
that marriage. Mrs. Forbes was received by Lord
Avonmore as Major Yelverton's wife. I never re-
ceived her. When I first became acquainted with
Miss Longworth, I was aware that a criminal in-
formation had been lodged against Major Yelver-
ton for bigamy. I was not aware that that was
done by her. I can't say that I was aware that
she was pursuing an action against Major
Yelverton in Scotland. Up to the time I '
met Mrs. Yelverton, I interdicted the subject of
her connection with Major Yelverton. I was
aware that he had been brought into Sir C.Cress.
well's Court, but that he avoided being brought
there. I am aware that the effect of success by
Miss Longworth will be to declare that the mar-
riage with Mrs. Forbes is no marriage, and that
her children are illegitimate. I visited Miss Long-
worth nearly every day during the progress of the
trial in Dublin. I went over to Dublin at her re.
quest to arrange matters with Major Yelverton and
Mrs. Theresa, in order that the trial should not
take place. One or other of the ladies must give
way. I don't know what the arrangement was to
be, but I understood that one of the ladies was to
give way. (Laughter.) I went over in order to
take up a neutral position. Just as she was leaving
the Court the second day, I took her hand and said
I was convinced she never could have gone through
such an ordeal unless she had been supported by
the truth, and I declared in her favour. My brother
did not take the same view. I stood alone in the
Avonmore family in that respect. At this time I
was aware that the Scotch proceedings were going
on to try whether Theresa Longworth was married
or not to MajorYelverton. At that time I opened my
house to the lady who was trying to convict my
nephew of bigamy. lam not aware that I gave
offence to my brother. Major Yelverton succeeds
to the title of Lord Avonmore, and after that his
son, if legitimate. Then my son, if Major Yelver-
ton has no legitimate son. The letter I received
from Mr. 'Walker was written in a very
angry tone, and a very unjustifiable tone, and
very stupid tone. (Laughter.) I am not aware
whether he was angry or not. It was offen-
sive and stupid. It did not, in the slightest
degree, produce an unfavourable impression as to
Miss Longworth. It did not alter my opinion of
her. I was satisfied it could not be agreeable to her
to read it. She had suffered so much from the same

cause that I did not think it would aggravate it
much more. I mean from the aspersions that were
cast upon her character. This was an aggravation
of it. I rather think when my wife had read it
she went in and told her of it. I would otherwise
have had great doubt if I would have shown it to
her or not. I could not conceal that from my wife.
I was aware that the Scotch proceedings were going
on, and that her character was legally assailed. I
am aware that the letter I received was published
in the newspapers, for I saw it there. I don't know
who published it.
Re-examined by the Solicitor-General—lt was
after this action of damages had been commenced

that I saw the letter.
The Hon. Mrs. W. H. Yelverton was examined
as to having spoken of Mr. Walker's letter to the

pursuer, and Mr. Walter Price Howell Powell, of
Maesgwynne, was examined to prove that the pur-
suer hv.d been introduced to the best society in the
_ _

county by the Hon. Mr. and Mrs. Yelverton. -
For the defence, the letter was neither denied
nor sought to be justified, and the defender ex-

pressed regret at having written it under feelings
of irritation. Copies of the Saturday Review and
&nited Service Gazette of the 9th of Marcb, 1861,

were put in to prove that flip pursuer's conduct had

been freely commented upon in the public prints.
It was also urged that the letter had been a private
one, and that the publicity given to it was not the

act of the defender,

Counsel having addressed the jury,
Lord Ardmillan proceeded to su,n. up the case.
n
He told the jury that though it was ecgssary, to

explain the case, that they should be told of the
marriage actions, they were to give no cffect to the

circumstances of those actions.

They had not to

deal with the truth or falsehood of the statement

mule in those actions, their attention being only

called to the fact that eertain statements were made
on one side and denied on the other, and out of that

case the present action had arisen. The letter was
not denied, and the puriuer acted judiciously in not

pressing for exorbitant damages. It was necessary
the verdict should be for the pursuer, and, though
he did not think nominal damages would be suffi-
cient, it was not a case for extravagant damages.
In fixing the amount the jury would remember that
the letter was a libel while in the receiver's hands,
but for the publication of the letter the defender

was not responsible, and the publication must not be
taken as an aggravation of the case.
After a short absence, the jury intimated that
they had agreed to a verdict by a majority, which
counsel on both sides agreed to accept, and the ver-
dict was given for the pursuer. Damages, £5OO.

THE TRIAL OF BOHAN.—The result of this trial
(says the Dublin Express), which has been looked upon by
the people as a great victory over the Government,ia already
showing its unmistakeable mischievous fruits. Col. Knox
and Mr, Gore Jones, R.M., were received by the towns-
people in Thurles on their return with ?roans. On Sunday
an immense body of men, exceeding 1,000 marched in
triumph about Templemoro with Bohan, who is looked on
as a hero. Mr. Carden, of Barnane, while passing them on
the high road, was hiased, and had mud thrown at him.
Those are outward demonstrations ; but, in addition, it is
felt that the failure of the prosecution has been a most
unfortunate circumstance, The general opinion of all
classes is, that Colonel Knox was mistaken in the men,
certainly in one, and the slight marks on the hand of Bohan
were evidently not the blows of a heavy whip•handle used
force. I am informed this circumstance had great
wiituy ^ iury,who were formed in equal parts of resi-
e-2°-
with rut." • --m.th riding, and were all men of
dents in the north ana
position and intelligence.

LAW" INTELLIGENCE.--June 2G.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(After Term Nisi Prius Sitticgs, at Westminster,
before Lord Chief justice Cockburn and a Special
Jury.)

LANE V. PANTON.
The declaration alleged that the plaintiff Johanna
Lane was seduced by the defendant, and was de-
livered of a male child. The defendant was the
father of the; child, and he agreed that in the event
of the Pie'itiff's not molesting him to pay the plain-
tiff the 'sum of 12s. per week for the maintenance of
the c'eild until he attained seven years cf age. The
Piefentiff aileged that she had kept her part of the
e
?remise, and that there were 35 weeks due. There
were other counts for money paid, &c. The defen •
dant pleaded that the plaintiff bad broken her pro-
mise and absolved him, and that except as to £5 Bs.
never indebted ; £2 ss. was paid before action, ansi
the remainder had since been paid into court.
Mr. Mills, Q.C., and Mr. Diy were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.O , Mr. Ribtoe, and
Mr. Biron were counsel for the defendant.
From the state of the pleadings the defendant's
case commenced first.
Mr. Hawkins, in stating the defendant's case to
the jury, said the plaintiff' eves a domestic servant,
and the defendant a retired medical man, now
residing at Sittingbourne, Kent. In 1857 he
practised in Gloucester-terrace, New-road, and
in the course of that year he accidentally met
the plaintiff in Edgware-read, and spoke to her,
which resulted in an intimacy between them,
and in July, 1858, she was delivered of a
child (called Thomas), of which the defendant
was the father. The defendant afterwards went
to America, leaving, however, sufficient money for
the plaintiff and her child's maintenance. In Sep-
tember, 1858, he returned and saw her, and in Sep-
tember, 1859, he was married on the Continent to
his present wife. They came back to Hastings, but
some mistake being made in the transit of the lug-
gage he had to come to London, leaving his wife
at Hastings. He went to his residence at Bays-
water, and to his surprise the plaintiff made her
appearance there, and in consequence of her con-
duct he was induced to give her the written agree-
ment declared upon. In July, 1859, the plaintiff
called on the defendant's wife, and very much
annoyed her. Subsequently he found she had had
a second child, which child she tried to affiliate on
him, and she summoned him to the Hammersmith
police-court. She there swore, and produced wit-
nesses, that the defendant had visited her at certain
places, naming one day, the day on which his wife
was confined. The defendant denied that he had
been intimate with her since his return from
America, but the magistrate made an order of
maintenance of 2s. 6d. per week. 'Pleat was appealed
against and quashed. The defendant had no wish
to shield himself from the responsibility of main-
taining his own child, but he objected to its being
appropriated by the plaintiff as she thought proper,
and he claimed to be protected from her annoyance
The learned counsel then culled the defendant.
Mr. Penton deposed--I reside at Sittingbourne,
in Kent. I made the plaintiff's acquedntance first in
the autumn of 1857. I met her accidentally in the
Edgware-road, and I went home with her. A child
was born in July, 1858. I had left this country
previously, and was in America at the birth of the
child. I returned in September, and was residing
in Pembridge-place, Bayswater. I went on the
Continelit in January, 1859, and whilst abroad in
March of that year I married my present wife. We
returned to St. Leonard's in May, and in conse-
quence of the luggage being mis-sent I had to come
to louden on the 30th of May. She came that
day to my house at Bays water, ami, unknown to
me, obtained admittance. She was very violent
and excited, and used bad language. I asked her
what all that row was about, and, so far as I could
understand, she wanted a written promise of pay-
ment for the support of the child. She had been
regularly paid up to this time from 7s to 9s. per
week for the maintenance of the child. I consulted
a friend near by, and I then wrote the agreement
referred to, and instructed my solicitor to pay the
money. The money was paid till July, 1861, when
I heard she had had a second child. I was sum-
moned on the sth of September, 1861, to the Ham-
mersmith Police-court, and charged with being the
father of the child born. in September, 1860. She
stated that in December, 1859, I had had connec-
tion with her at my own house, and also at the
house of a Mrs. Reynolds. I never had intercourse
with her at those pieces, and did not see her after
the day I gave her the agreement. The magistrate,
however, made an onior.. I appealed, and attended
at the next Middlesex: sessions. The case was
called on, but the plaintiff did not appear, and the
conviction was formally, quashed by order of the
court. My wife was con.fined at Pembridge-place
in December, 1859.
Cross-examined—This is the first action in which
I have been defendant. I never had an action for
seduction brought against .me. I know the Dis-
pensary in the New-road, Paddington. I occa-
sionally went there and assisted for a friend. I
swear .1 did not first see the plaintiff there as a
patient, and so become acquai.eted with her. I did
see her there once as a patient. I was living in
Gloucester-terrace, Hyde Park, in 1856. I was
not married then. I had lost; my wife. I be-
lieve the plaintiff was 22 or 23 years of age when I
first met her, and not 15 or 16 years of age.
I never invited her to my house :in Gloucester-ter-
race. She called there on one or two occasions.
She did not regularly visit me at my house in 1856
and 1857 by appointment. I kept no note of it if
she did. I have no recollection of it. Up to July,
1858, I occasionally saw her and !had intercourse
with her. I did not correspond with her. I wrote
to her once. Out of the four envelopes produced
ono only is in my handwriting, and the same with
regard to their contents. The others were not
written by my authority. I never saw them before.
The Lord Chief Justice—lt does mot require a
second glance to see that they are not in the same
handwriting.
Witness admitted a second letter to be his.
The letters were then put in and read. They
had reference only to her obtaining a situation.
-Witness continued—She was then in service at
4, Gloucester- terrace, Bishop's-road. I di.d not get
the situation for her. I left funds for her confine
ment before going to America, but I cannot say if
I appointed tho place where she was to be confined.
Mary Gott was in my service then, and she is now
my laundress at Sittingbourne. She was with me
as an occasional servant two months ago. Ido not
know if the plaintiff was confined at her house. I
saw the plaintiff twice in September, 1858, after
my return,from Vmerica, but I do not remember
if any intercourse took place between us. I did not
v:sit her at Mrs. Gott's after my return. I 'once
saw her there before going to America. I do not
think she met me in the street after my return from
America, and that I pretended that I did not know
her. During the pending of the appeal terms of
compromise were made. I made provision for the
plaintiff during my absence in America, but I do
not recollect the amount I left with Mr. Apple-

yard for that purpose.
Re-examined—l never heard any complaint of
her not being paid her regular stipend during my
absence. She ;Admitted before the police magistrate
that she was regularly paid.
Mary Brandon, domestic servant, residing in
eforlotte-street, Portland-place, deposed that at the
end of 1859 the plaintiff was living with a Mrs.
Powell, in Sutherland-place, Westbourne-grove.
She remained there tilt March, 1860. She told me j

that she was in the family-way, but not by whom.
Mr. Benjamin Fronde, builder, deposed to her
living there at the end of 1859.
Mary Gott, a married woman, deposed that she
occasionally worked for the defendant. She assisted
in the kitchen, and attended to the door after a cer-
tain hour. She never saw the plaintiff inside the

defendant's house; the defendant was always let in
by one of the servants.
Cross-examined—The plaintiff was confined at
her house of her first child. She never had crimi-

nal intercourse with the defendant. She was Hs--

ing with her husband in Kent.
(The witness appeared to feel acutely these impu-
tations on her character. The Lord Chief Justice

complained of the tone, temper, and manner of the
cross-examination, and tho jury considered the
cross-examination objectionable.)
Witness—She went to live in Kent, and worked
for the defendant at Mrs. Par ton's request.
Be-examined— She had known the plaintiff before
the birth of the child. _

Elizabeth Walker deposed that sho was in the
defendant's service in 1859. She had often seen the
plaintiff outside the house, but never inside. The
plaintiff walked with her cttild up and down in
front of the house three or four times a-week. She
used to hold the child up in front of the window,
talk loud, and swear about the defendant in such a
loud tone as to collect a crowd around the house.

This was before Mrs. Panton came home.
She never heard the plaintiff call out after Mrs.
Panton came home to the house. She never saw
the plaintiff at the defendant's house. The &fen_
dant seldom went out after dinner.

Cross-examined—She was five years altogether
in that service. She never saw the Plaintiff at
Gloucester-terrace.

_
Mr. Ennis, sen., defendant's solicitor, proved pay-
ing the plaintiff 12s. per week, from May, 1861, to
the 2d of July following. She then
.brotglit two
children with her. He asked her Whose they were P
She said, "they were Dr. Panton's," That was the
first time he had heard about the secon.l child. Ile
discontinued payment en his own account.
Mr. Ennis, jun., gave evidence with reference to
the appeal. Mr. Martin, who acted as her adviser,
and Mr. Metcalfe, barrister, Were at the sessions on I