The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-19 00:00:00

DECISION THIS DAY

IN THE

YELVE RTON MARRIAGE
CASE.

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
EDINBURGH, FRIDAY MORNING.

COURT OF SESSION-FIRST DIVISION.

[FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.]

The intense interest manifested during the whole
of this extraordinary trial seemed to have increased
to the highest pitch, in consequence of its having
become generally known that their lordships would
deliver their deeis..on in this case to-day. Crowds
of persons outside the Parliament House who had
not been successful in obtaining admission were
trying every
means in their power to gain entrance,
but the dimensions of the Court, even had a tithe of
those anxious to be present been admitted, would
have been found totally inadequate for their accom-
modation. So great was the pressure that even
those engaged in the case had a difficutly in reach-
ing their proper places.

The judges were the Lord President, Lord
Curriehill, and Lord Deas.

It will be recollected that the case was, in the
month of July last, before Lord Ardmillan, who, at
the conclusion of the arguments, pronounced his
decision adverse to the Hon. Mrs. Yelverton (nee
Longworth). The learned judge was of opinion
that no marriage had been established by the plain.
tiff (Mrs. Yelverton) according to any of the irre-
gular modes recognised by the law of Scotland.
The decision was appealed against, and was
carried by reclaiming petition 'before the First
Division of the Court of Cession, and was argued
at length during the early part of last month.
The Counsel for the pursuer (Mrs. Yelverton)
were the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General
(since raised to the bench); Major Yelverton being
represented by Mr. Gordon, Mr. Young (now-
Solicitor-General), and Mr. Millar.

The statement of the pursuer on that occasion
was that the engagement to marry was first entered
into at Galata, in September, 1855; was renewed
in the Crimea in March, 1856; again renewed in
Edinburgh in the spring of 1857 ; that the parties
were married at Rosstrevor in August, 1857, and
again crane to Scotland, where they lived with each
other for some time as husband and wife. It was
not till after the Irish ceremony that intercourse
took place, and the pursuer consented that the mar-
riage should be kept a secret from the defender's
family, owing to his pecuniary relations with his
uncle, who had lent him money, and who wished
him not to marry. The marriage, however, was
acknowledged by the defender to the pursuer's
friends, who consented to keep it secret, and the
parties travelled together in the Highlands and.
elsewhere as husband and wife.

The defender, on the other hand, said there
never was any engagement, promise, or contempla-
tion of marriage on his part, that he entered into
the Irish marriage as a device to satisfy the lad3's
conscience, and that he had had intercourse with
her during the first Edinburgh visit and during the
three weeks that elapsed after their meeting at
Waterford and marriage at Rosstrevor, when they
lived in different hotels together.
In the form in which the case was at present
raised the questions the Court was asked to decide
were two—first, whether there was an interchange
of mutual consent to marry proved by written de•
clarations or verbal acknowledgments of the de-
f.odcr ; and, second whether there was a promise
of marriage followed by intercourse in faith of
that promise. The pursuer maintained the affirma..
tive. The defender the negative of these proposi-

tions.

The marriage ceremony at Rosstrevor, in Ireland,
was not insisted on by the pursuer as a specific
ground in the present case, there being in evi-
dence the opinions of Irish constitutional lawyers
to the effect that that ceremony did not constitute
marriage, but the point was expressly kept open
in order to be raised anew should the question
come before the House of Lords, who, being
versed in Irish as well as Scotch law, would, of
course, set aside legal opinions as evidence, and
form their own jadgment on the cause. Reference,
however, was made by the pursuer to the Irish
ceremony, as throwing light both on the alleged
interchange of consent and the alleged promise to

marry.
The excitement in Court at the moment the
Judges took their seats on the bench was intense,
in consequence of it having been reported that two
of them were in favour of reversing the decision of
the Lord Ordinary.

The Lord President delivered his judgment in
a long elaborate speech, and concluded his remarks
by expressing his opinion that the decision of Lord
Ardmillan ought not to be reversed.
Lord Deas and Lord Curriehill summed up in
in her favour. Majority for the Scotch marriage,
ONE.

immediately the decision in favour of 'Mrs. Yel-
verton was pronounced, the spectators in court gave
vent to their feelings by loud and continuous cheer-
ing, which all the authority of the Court was for
some time unable to suppress. On the result of
the trial becoming known outside the court, the
same demonstrations of approval took place.
The matter, so far as the opinion of the Judges
are concerned, both of Ireland and Scotland, having
been decided, the expensive proceeding of an appeal
to the House of Lords, as the highest Court of Judi-
cature is the kingdom, is the last step that can be
taken in this peculiar and interesting affair.