The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-28 00:00:00

Sergeant Slice said this was the defendant's case.

Mr. Bramwell replied. He said he was quite ready to
admit that a very momentous inquiry was involved in
the present issue, but still he was sure that the question
would be decided fairly. He felt quite assured that,
whatever might be the result of that day's proceedings,
the point at issue between Lord Huntingtower and the
lady, who, notwithstanding what had passed, he would
still call Lady Huntingtower, would not be decided to-
day, but that further proceedings must inevitably take
place before that matter was finally decided. The jury
would, however, recollect that Lady Huntingtower, or
rather the person who assumed that title, was entirely
misrepresented on the present occasion ; and the only
question they had to decide was, whether Mr. Jarrett
had made out such a reasonable case as would justify
them in saying that he ought to be paid the money he
had expended in the subsistence of this unhappy lady
and her children. They were not now trying the ques-
tion whether the oldest of these children would one day

be entitled to the dignity of Countess of Dysart in her
own right ; that would probably have to be decided by
another tribunal ; but the simple question they had to
decide was, whether Mr. Jarrett had given reasonable
evidence to make out his claim for the money for which
he sued. They had in evidence that the defendant had
for many years declared that Elizabeth Acford was his
wife, and held her out to the world in that capacity, and
that he had himself signed a register of the birth of one
of the children, where he described her as Elizabeth
Tollemache, formerly Acford, thereby clearly declaring
that in point of fact she was his wife. Why did the de-
fendant burn the letters that were in her possession ?
Why was the • unhappy lady abused and wounded in the
attempt to gain possession of other letters ? Why was
the defendant guilty of this discreditable outrage upon a
woman, whether she was his wife or not, if he had not
some important object, such as the concealment of evi-
dence of his marriage, to attain ? Then let them look at
the paltry excuse he made for going to Scotland at all—
pretending that he went to avoid his creditors. Why, he
only remained there a few weeks, during which time he
admitted that he did not pay a single creditor, and then he
returned to England, where he might as well have remained,
for he was just in the same position, and it was absurd
to suppose that the reason he gave for his journey was
the correct one. Was it not much more reasonable
that, the lady having left him and gone home, to her
friends, he should have induced her to return to him by
a promise of marriage, and that he took her to Scotland
for that purpose ? It was true that the defendant had
been called, and that he had, upon his oath, denied
that it was so. They would, however, consider his po-
sition in connection with this inquiry, and also his cha-
racter according to his own admission and his own writ-
ten statements. Was a man who talked of getting a
fool to give him six hundred pounds for his acceptance
for a thousand, who talked of cheating honest trades-
men, and made a joke about eternal credit, as he termed
it, worthy of much consideration ? Why, they were
acts for which a man deserved to stand at the bar of a
criminal court ; and when they talked of his being the
son of the Earl of Dysart, and a member of a high and
noble family, all he could say was, so much the more
disgrace for him. It was undoubtedly a very painful
inquiry, and no doubt the question was, in point of fact,
involvel, which of the two, wives was to be made the
victim ; but the jury at the same time would bear in
mind that that question was really not now at issue,
but that the only point they had to decide was, whether
the plaintiff had reasonably made out that he was en-
titled to the money he had expended, and he felt as-
sured they would not return an unjust verdict because
other subjects might be involved in the inquiry.
Baron Alderson then summed up. He said that no
learned counsel, or anybody else, ever asked for an un-
just verdict ; but he doubted very much whether, in the
present case, Mr. Bramwell was not doing that which
he professed his intention not to do. The plaintiff had
thought fit to trust a woman who was living away from
a man, upon the supposition that he was her husband ;
and if he had really been her husband he was justified
in doing so, for the law of England allowed a wife to
pledge her husband's credit for necessaries. What
evidence, however, was there that any marriage had
taken place, and yet the present very serious issue had
arisen because the plaintiff had chosen to give credit to
the woman without proper inquiry. What right had he
to set up a question which would go to bastardize the
children of that which was an undoubted marriage, and
make miserable and wretched the home of hr who
clearly had been married to the defendant in the open day,
and in the presence of her family and friends ? What-
ever might be said by the counsel for the plaintiff, there
could be no doubt that it was impossible for the jury to
find a verdict for him without at the same time declaring
their belief that a previous marriage had taken place
in Scotland ; and when they considered the very
serious consequences of coming to such a decision,
he was sure they would not so decide unless the
evidence was most clear and conclusive. If there
was even any doubt upon the subject, he was sure on so
very serious a case they would not jump to the conclu-
sion that a marriage had taken place, but that they
would give the defedant the benefit of that doubt. If
the question had been one of a marriage in England, he
should have stopped the case hours before ; but in Scot-
land—and he could not help looking upon it as a dis-
grace to the law of that country—almost any proceeding
amounted to a contract of marriage. The parties might
almost hop over a broomstick, or if the man said he
took the woman for a wife, and she said she took him
for a husband, it was sufficient ; and hence the difficulty
in the present case arose, and they were called upon to
say whether a ceremony of some kind or other, amounting
to a marriage, had not taken piece between the parties.
If such a reasonable contract of marriage, however, was
set up, surely there ought to be some evidence of what
really did take place at the time, and the hearsay
statements of parties made several years afterwards
ought not to be taken as proof of such a marriage. bay-
wwhen
n notthe
neg
sufficientt ak e pl a
fceer. Surelyreasonable suc evidencehmen, as h
particularly
very serious consequences that must result from an ad-
verse decision were taken into consideration.
There
s wouldh
was also this fact, which appeared to him to be very
occurred ; and
o
asked upon the sub-
yet not a single question had been h r
im-
portant. If a marriage of any kwinedudaidwraeraelleyftaalkl ethpelace,
the woman in question must be cir-
cumstances, and the precise time when
nt for them to say that the
fficie
ject.The learned judge p
were not required to decide trocheeadtednetonaasarryia thgaetdtide jtaukye
place, but it would be au