The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-30 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-July 29.

WESTMINSTER.—A few days ago Mr. Eugene
Plumber M'Carthy, solicitor and notary public in
Ireland, was charged with double bigamy and per-
jury in making an affidavit to obtain a license for
his third alleged marriage.
The evidence in support of the charges went to
show that the prisoner was married on the 28th of
Jan., 1839, to Catherine Creagh, at Cullingford, near
Dublin, by the Rev. J. G. T. Schultz • that he was
again married on the 29th of June, 1844,' to Miss
Mary Anne O'Bryan, at St. Peter's, in the county
of Cork ; and again to Emily Verley, at St. James's,
Holloway, on the 22d of May, 1852, the affidavit
for which last marriage set forth that prisoner was
a bachelor.
Prisoner was then remanded upon the application
of Mr. Lewis, in order that he might procure fur-
ther evidence against him to complete the cases.
Yesterday, upon the prisoner being s gain brought
up, Mr. Wontner attended on his behalf, and the
case was reopened the validity of the first marriage
being questioned. The proof of this marriage rested
upon the testimony of a gentleman who was present
when some ceremony was performed, and the pro-
duction of the following two letters written by the
accused many years afterwards to Mr. Miller, a
solicitor, which were repeatedly referred to, and
which should be read with attention ;
" 16, Eaton-street, Woolwich, Sept. 5, 1860.
" Sir,—l could have wished that the recital of
the marriage of 1839 should exonerate me from
committing a deliberate fraud in the marriage of
1844. It was some years subsequent to the latter
date that the validity of a marriage without banns
or a license by a dissenting minister was recognised.
All the circumstances attending the marriage of
1839 strengthen the conviction it was worthless,
until to my consternation the courts decided other-
wise. I Take then gt very young man ; the woman

lived with me previously, and a certificate was had
only to save appearances. In 1839 we separated ;
the woman, no more than myself, viewed it valid.
She resided in the city of Cork; I also resided near
it. She never sought me, and knew where I was
residing. I was married by license, in 1844, at St.
Peter's, Cork. Frequently saw the woman in the
streets. Was never molested or accosted by her ;
never made the least charge upon me, for she, as
well as myself, attached no value to the marriage,
and I remained so contented until, as I have already
said, the question was raised on circumstances simi-
lar, and the courts decided their validity. Hence I
am fairly entitled to be absolved from any fraud in
making the contract of 1844.,,
After alluding to
some legal proceedings being taken to cancel a deed
of settlement, the letter concludes—.‘
obedient servant, E. A. MCARTHY." I am, your
A postscript says :—" I need scarcely add you
shall find me ready to do any and every act you may
deem necessary to secure Mrs. M.'s rights—as re-
compense for an involuntary wrong it is justly due."
The second letter was as follows :
" Woolwich, Sept. 9, 18G0.

" Sir,—The place of celebration of the ceremony
of 1839, in Cullingford, a suburb of Dublin—the
celebrant, the Rev. Mr. Schultz, a German Luthe-
ran minister, at his residence. The register he
keeps is in the Prerogative or Consibtorial Court,
Dublin, lodged and impounded there since Lis mar-
riages were first questioned. lean afford no informa-
tion of Creagh's death. I did hear it asserted in 1855,
but where I know not; it mayhave been Cork,the last
place I heard of her, but persons of her class assume
names, and have aliases for everyweek of the year, and
it may be no easy matter to satisfactorily trace her.
She was in London a considerable time after 1839,
and in Dublin also as long. There can be nodoubt
that she was in Cork early in 1855, and no difficulty
in proving it. The decision settling the validity of
Schultz's marriages is well known in Ireland, and
I have no doubt many a heedless young man found
himself snared by it as I did.", (Herb follows some
remarks about the settlement deed before alluded to,
and the letter is signed ":E. A. WCARTHY.")
Miss Mary Anne O'Bryan, of 30, Westbourne-
place, Eaton-square, was cross-examined by Mr.
Woatner—She said she was first acquainted by her
brother Dr_ O'Bryan, of prisoner's first marriage in
1852. She did not then believe it. He told her
about a year after that he had seen the certificate
of that marriage. Witness was married in 1844,
and continued to live with him till 1852, when he
went away with Miss Verlay, Witness fetched
him back, but he went away again with her. Her
friends wrote to him. She and her family sold off
his goods. Could not say whether her brother took
prisoner's position of sole notary at Queenstown— -
this was the first time she ever heard her brothelr
was a notary. Never heard positively that he got
it. Had heard Robert O'Bryan was practising
there as notary. Was only acquainted with it by
hearsay. When married to prisoner her property
was not settled upon her, but after being married
seven or eight years he settled it upon her in April,
1852. In 1860 she was desirous of recovering the
sole control of the property, and instituted a suit
in the Irish Chancery Court—he wrote the letters
produced to facilitate her getting the money out of
court. She supposed he did it for that purpose.
Witness and prisoner were living together in 1860,
when these letters were written. Witness had not
read them before they were sent, but posted them
herself, as prisoner was lame. Witness continued
to live with him after this, but left him when she
found she could. It was June twelve months
when she last lived with him ; had since corre-
sponded with him in answer to his letters for money.
Had seen him, but not frequently. Had lived
in Belgrave and Warwick places, and there being
some arrears of rent an execution was put in, when
she declared herself to be a single woman, and
wished she had done so sooner. Could not say her
brothers gave him into custody on his coming to the
house at that time for this bigamy.
By Mr. Arnold—Thought it was after the mar-
riage with Miss Verlay that witness became
acquainted with the prisoner's marriage with Cathe-
rine Creagh.
By Mr. Lewis—X9oo of the money she obtained
from the Court of Chancery, to facilitate the getting
of which the letters had been written, went towards
paying prisoner's debts.
Mr. Warrington, the only witness to the first
alleged marriage, was called and cross-examined_
He said he was present at Schultz's when the pri-
soner and Catherine Creagh were there ; he was
present at prisoner's invitation. Schultz was a
very notorious person ; he performed marriages
when persons had not time to contract them through
the church. There was a ceremony of some sort
gone through, but he could not say what. Schultz
read and spoke in some form, and witness believed
they were married at that time. Saw no books used
by either of the parties. Never saw such a marriage
before. Prisoner said he was anxious to make Ca-
therine Creagh reparation and marry her.
By Mr. Arnold—Could not say whether any reli-
gious form was used at the marriage. Could not
say whether Schultz was in canonicals ; thought he
saw the parties kneel, but could not say,
Mr. Lewis urged that the prisoner's own admission
in the letters of marriage was evidence of the feet.
Mr.Wontner addressed the court with much force,
urging that before this case could be sustained, it
would be necessary to prove the validity of the first
marriage.

An Irish policeman was called to prove that
Schultz's marriage had been acted on as valid in
the courts of law in that country.
Mr. Lewis having urged that the bigamy was
clearly made out, and ought to be sent to a jury,
Mr. Arnold thought that with the letters and the
evidence of Mr. Warrington of a ceremony, there
was a prima fame case made out, and committed
the accused for trial upon the first charge of inter-
marrying with Miss O'Bryan while his former wife
Catherine Creagh was alive.
No evidence was given in the other case, but it
was stated during the proceedings that indictments
might be preferred, and that in such cases notice
would be given to the opposite side, a course Mr.
Arnold thought would be hard upon the accused,
after her family had suffered 10 years to elapse
without a prosecution.
Prisoner was committed for trial at the Central
Criminal Court.

Mr. Arnold offered to take one surety in £2O, as
he thought it not a case in which the prisoner should
be locked up. --

WORSHIP-STREET.—ANOTHER SEDUCTION
AND ATTEMPTED SUlClDE.—Rebecca East, stated
on the police-sheet to be only 15 years of age, was
charged before Mr. Leigh with attempting to com-
mit suicide by poison.
William Barrett, a gardener, living in Grove-
street, Hackney, said—Yesterday morning I was
iLformed by a gentleman while in Victoria-park,
that a young girl was in the inclosure in a very
excited state. .1 instantly went in there and saw
the prisoner loitering about. On perceiving me ap-
proach her she dashed a bottle against the iron rail-
ings, and it broke. I asked her to go with me to a
medical man, but she refused. Subsequently I took
her to Dr. Davey's outside the park, and he gave
her an emetic.

Cornelius Donovan, a park constable, produced a
small phial in fragments labelled " Poison," and
said—l picked this up from the spot where the
prisoner had been in the enclosure. She told
me she had not drank all the contents, or did
not take it at all, and that she had been
seduced by a person who had brought her from
the country, and left her directly afterwards with
17s. In her pocket I found this pocket-book.
(Witness produced a pocket-book, in which was
written in an excellent hand, "Rebecca Lucenia
Evangeline East, born September 1," and contain-
ing, among other memorandas, letters from a
soldier expressive of strong devotion to some
female.) Witness continued—She told me that
she had picked up the book.
Mr. Stafford (clerk) to the prisoner. It has your
name in it ?

The young girl, who had not hitherto spoken,
made no reply until Bendall, the gaoler, repeated
the remark, and then, as also to subsequent ques-
tions, she answered almost inaudibly, and with her
head bowed forward; her first words were, " I
wrote my name in it."
Mr. Leigh—ls it true that you have been
seduced ?
Prisoner—Yes.
Mr. Leigh—What is the name of the person.who
seduced you, prisoner ?
Prisoner—Thomas Leigh.
Mr. Leigh—Where did you come from ?
Prisoner—Lincolnshire.
Mr. Leigh—When ?

Prisoner---A fortnight ago.
Mr. Leigh—Where ?
_ _

Prisoner—ln Whitechapel.
Mr. Leigh—Where are your parents ?
Prisoner—My mother lives in Portsmouth.
Mr. Leigh—Have you any relatives in London ?
Prisoner—A sister in Manchester-square.
Mr. Leigh—You say that you came from Lincoln.
shire. Who were you with there ?
The Prisoner gave some name, which sounded
like " Mrs. Tudd."
Mr. Stafford—Where did you sleep last in
London ?
No medical evidence was furnished, and a re-:
mand was ordered.
The prisoner has a very young appearance, with
regular features, but betokening r, recent mental
ress.

LIVERPOOL COTTON MARKET, July
cotton market is daily gaining strength, and this day.'
oalea exceed 8,000 hales---one-half•on speculation and for
export. Prices ar© id to id per lb higher than last Fri-
doe g arrest rotes,