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

he lady, it appeared, was residing at Cirencester, at an
• '
,inn, antrirak:evidently in want of money. The defendant
s, ~e.• ,-..,
.7, ..- '• • f• . --- l' - -*fhb, • was in Via.On; wrote to. her, stating
.sthat; be
HONEi,GlßClJlT:dintasafbiealnalest 26: ' - ' hid been 'abiiii-fall the nierningt6 try to get twe-peends
(BeforesiMrerßaron-Aldersettatiaid ar-Spelei'al-311 Is)
.' and riehdliet; hilt had been unsuccessful. ttis &Ally
I,`''' ; 'lli'rltaultaitLV.-aoiiisiiiapft.,, . ... wo ddo nothingfor lama ;_and li.p, himself was
,nenaile4e.
pf.,.niOney
~Uncleilhese eiraninStaiices, lie advised 'her to call upon
ThiCietibia:*ii:s hie:tight' icriectilfeis'a epee
alleged- - 'to:havel3E4ra ';:e-ifeeidedin-iiece4aaiesTor• ..-P'esi:sen a respectable selicitor, whomke named, and adadied her
ae„,
atta ;Ise:the:is to ,Yramed EllialbetFAHatd,:-wli6 was re .131"e0 Saari lain IP ''hamhow they wereaseituateds.actaak_.hka
Wife of the 'diferidantal' ''''' "•''
_iaapp'ets,astcl ~he ,eaid ..that sif "*ae.„were
.s s mia mamma-a-14,41 e,, lila,. mi.: )3iieslaape,cenn_se, for r- , angst/le fear of„ exposure Wekeld.ncluseethem thosaive him
o
the f-'4911-'.'irgearif SlYee.'ana *-.-.m. Chambers
-it -Clefeitcla- Mr. Ville§ was: also
-
.sonai Money. Headeised het tceact as thoug at was. f
her own-accord; andnot to say award about his having
Igage‘;-eli/StneWirterhelirng thee' case, as 'it Waeunderateed, in' advised
1 t
her ; and 4.3; said if. she did so- everyt hing-Weilld
behalf of .LarlYlDYsart,- the mother or the defendant.
... Lure, out. all right. . He, afterwards, wrote a. secee .e -
Mrs Bain:mem iiaoasasingue case, said, that the plain- . ter,. in. which. he advised the lady to apply.tothe gentle-
-tiffs Arthur Jarrett; was alaersoa in a huinble condition asan he had mentiened:before in his capacity of clerk to
of life; being the relieving officer to one portion of Lam- the magistrates;and asked for a summons against-him
- beth parish, .and- the defendant was the Hon. William for deserting her, and he told her to appear hostileh t
Felix' LionerTollemiche, commonly called
,Lord Hunt- him, and say that she was compelled to take this step on
' ingtowera son of the Earl of Dysart,. a nobleman of very account- of her being. in
.a
.destitute condition. This. he
ancient' family and of large possessions. The action was said would compel his family to do them jestice. In an-
broughtrecover compensation for the support of a other letter the defendant told the lady he had been at
to
lady and three children. - That the children were, really St, Albans; and that a person there was going to intro-
the children of the defendant he believed there was not duce hiin to a fool who would give himrsopi. for his ac-
the slightest doubt, and le•believed that the only ques- ceptanee fot a thousand, and he was going to give half
Lion in the cause Would be, whether their mother was the money to the person who was the means of his get-
the wife of the-defendant, and he believed' he should lay ting the money, and when he obtained the balance lie
evidence before • them which-would leave no reasonable would "rig out his deary" in the state she desired. He
doubt of that fact. - The circumstances under which the went on to say that he was disgusted with this country,
claim "'arose 4vare bf rather a Pecilliar character. -It aps -and hail some thOnghts of going 'abiOad and taking her
peated that about the middle of the year 1849, the with him. In another letter, the defendant levaing,heard
- -plaintiff: he his capacity of relieving officer, was called that-the lady was ill; wrote to her to inform 'her that a
upon to visit a case cif 'a ladat'and "three childten,- Whcs..daetkariiyea opposite the inn where she was staying, to
were living in the parish, -and-Whom he found in a state whom he advised her to apply iinmediatelY, as he said he
of utter destitution- By the ditecticsofthe board of 'was a vetrgeed' man, and what Waif:. better,' "would
guardian's he gave them teller; and continued to do so for stand, eternal Credit."
a-period of nine months, and it appeared that then, the - .:MniaSophia Charge deposed that in 1845 she was en-
case of .thelady' haying been investigated, sonialsersons. gaged in makinga dresS for •the. lady. who was called
krinteifered. in her -behalf, and -a; 'lodging
,of scene kind Mrs. -Tollemache 'when she resided in. the-WaridsWorth-
t:F
•- was •provided for her and children, Soon after- road. She saw the defendant there; and they lived as
wards; however; "she again became 'redueed to distress, man and wife. About the time the first child was born
and -a second time applied to the plaintiff; who. was so the. defendantraPPearecr very anxious- that it, should be a
, • iinpiesied; *ma the inforrnation he had ebtaineds with boy, .and said he should -be disappointed if it was not'
the haidehip•of the case, and struck by the misery -a great deal depended upon it, and he should -make the I
- and 'destitution 'in which she was left by the defen- all•handsome-preeentS. She wag • present • upori endOci
danti that, to-- avoid' the'ireeeesitY: of sending her to casion when Mr. and Mrs. Tollemache were looking a
the -anion Workhouse,-whieh 'wen the" only alternative, A book -coritairang 'the likenesies. of 'COnit " beauties, and,
he resolved to: take -the lady; and '.her .cliiidren into adkreiteing-Mrs." said; "YOU would have
his • cean-house 'and provide thorn there with each neces- ' title too if j7iii "hid your rights." ... . ,••
earies'ae:they required, hi the Lepeftlaatthe.alefendant, ' •Mieit'Pettiedeposed that she resided at •Croburg7plaep,
, . who he had ,no reason to "'delta waif the' htisha,nd of the Bennington-lane. In 1847, the defendant engaged
~• . , ' '
- - lady,-would one day-d 6 her justice, and at events re- apartments in her house, ' Ile said 'that his name was
pay him theamount he expended fol. the support offihis Langford; and he introduced the i.ady in question as his
wife and children.- As he befOres4a,.there was no wife: ' • They' Only stayed in her house ..a few Weeks on
doubt whatever' that- the children were the children of this.'eceaSibb;*lrat".-earaie. a second time mr September,
- -Lord Huntingtower, antrlid would now state the circum- 1848, and remained until the end of that year. • This
stances under which he and their mother became con- time. the lady Caine first, and One .Sunday the-defendant
noted; and.the evidence by'Whieh he shOnfct. 'endeavour came, and. there. was a •greitdisturbance, and when' she
to. establish- the - fact of a contract of ' mairiage haVina Went upstairs she fdund the panel of the , bed-rooni door
beeia,made between thein, according to the fornis of the broken in, . Wittiesteinquited what was the matter, and
-. Scotch law. The naineofthelady was Elizabeth Acford, Mrs. Langford said that her husband wanted' to take
and she was the daughter' of a respectable farmer in De- awayaletters.and papers relating to their marriage.' The
vonshire ;,' and- it appeared that'llie'cleferidant upon see- defendant then said lie wished to speak .to witness, and
s.ing her ercpressed a` violent Ipassion for -tier... He asked she took him into the parlour, and the • lady followed;
the . consent of his mother, the "COUntess of' Dysart,' to them. The defendant then said- that the' lady Was•nnt I
their union; and_upon her refusal to
-grant it, his case 9n his wife. ' She immediately teplied.that she was.' ' The!
. the part of the plaintiff must be,- that the defendant took defendant thensaid that if she had al`thousand pounds'
the lady to Scot/and; and there Married her. The jury she might claim her rights, but whete was the 'money to
a - were perhaps aware• that by the law of that
country a come from 1 : • - " .. -.-- : - • ,
. marriage was a much more simple'PrOceeding,thaii it was The certificates of the registration of the births' of the
in cle
this country; inedalmosCany ceremony would children were then put in- _ They were all described as
amount there to what was termed a contract of mar- being the children of William-Felix Lionel Tollemache
..riage, whickwas perfectly-bindieg upon' beth parties, azal•Eliaabeth Tolleiriaaia-forinerly Acford, and one of
awl it , was a --very strange thing that` their • cautious the instructions for the
.registty *as ''signed -by, the , de-
neighbours were satisfied with much less solemnity in a fondant himself' ''' -•- -- .- - •
proceeding of this important charactet than was required • ' Thiteclesed the Plaintiff's case,
in the disposal of any goods or chattels ofthe most - Mr. Sergeant Sheelnibtaittedthatthete. was not siiffi-
trifling amount. He should be able to show theinthere- cient evidence to' go' to 'the-jury:' ''" '
fore, that some sort of ceremony was performed
and he ' Baron Alderson said he could not decide that there
.was Also in a.condition to prove that the defendant him- was to'evideuce, and at all events he -should, not stop
self had stated that what took place in Scotland was the the case.
more binding, because he wasthe son of a Scotch peer. -•' Sergeant Shee-aecordingly addressed 'the lei*. He
.„.. ..,. . .
_This marriage 'occurred in 1844 ; and- .if appeared that said. he ' appeared -before' them -OS cOuitsel for Lord
the -parties lived together as man and wife until 1848, Huntingtower, the son of the Earl 'of Dysart, • a noble-
.and , during- that period, three children, all girls; were man undoubtedly 'of - large lieeseSsione;" but they
born. During all this time they liaed together as man must have Collected "from 'the eVideilce before them
and..wife, and passed by the same name'; but at 'the pe- that • notwithstanding 'the rank 'and fortune -of liis
nod he had mentioned; whether the defendant's passion family; the-defendant during the whole of 'these trans-
had cooled, or that the lady had become or from actions was in a position of extreme distress . and mi-
some other cause of which he was ignorant, the defendant eery,' with little'ot no' rneans'to'supPort his own tank, or
-abruptly broke off the Connection; and left his wife and to support a wife, or even a person in the onlaspOsitiOn
children to be reduced to a state -of 'utter deatitution, and in which he recognised the unfortunate woman on whose
ever since,, with . one exception; 'which was almost too behalf .the--eoniplaint was now Made:- 'lleshOrild riot
paltry to be mentioned, he had never afforded thera the attempt to' say a word in fAveut of the defendant on the
slightest assistance.• • The plaintiff; under these circum- score of motality:- There- Waierie doubt that he had
stances, .was•compelled to bringthe present action, and sinned, and that the wonaan in rpleatiOhlead aisn sinned
he said., that when the jury had-heard the evidence he that 'they were 'both equally Culpable, and thafthe'COn,
should-lay before their, he'beneved they would 'entertain sequences of sin- had followed their transgression..Thefe
ho doubt that the,lady-in-qUestion was really the wife of could also be no doubt that this per;ion had a claim upon
the defendant, and that he was liable to the Plaintiff for thelefieroeity and Ihe justice of the defendant; and also
the„expense heliad incurred hi aiipliiiiiing"her. and her upon his family tn-that extent for sonde' reasonable
70141dt-ens ~ . • .. , ..,_. .
tenance, and-he helievedthat if she had ecinsideredWhaf
...
7.The'foilewing witnesses were then examined : was., due to 'het real -position, and had' Made" aPteper
~• ll a•
~-Ivir.., A. Jarrett, deposed that he was the relieVing offi- appliCation, •it would have been attended to; and' some
Pqir.fer onetnfthe,distriets of 'Lanabeth •pariSli, and the reasonable allowance would have been made "lies, and.
Plaintiff in the present action •Li July, 1849, his at- the defendant in that respect- would have Made her all
tntion was called to' the case of al lady, who was called the reparation in his power. When, however; acting no
14,111.-: Tolleinache, rand- her three,' children. Ile found doubt under -the
this
of others; She' came 'feiWard tn:
thein OCcupying one room in a house in-PrinCess-scluare, set up a claim of this' description,. the defendant: fOlt that:
liawl an very gieat.-distress, and destitution,- Witness re- not only ih justice to himself, but also to the lady Wham
eved.thene: -In Set/tee-0)er; 1850,. he was again called he had since married; and by 'whem'he had issue, he hid.
upon fo• see _the same la,dY'and'•her children, and found no alternative but to resist such a claim, and state before
them in the &true state. - Upon' this occasion,: fram in- the world what Were 'the'real • circumstances 'of the con-
formation he: kid -received, he ' was induced._ to take the nection between him 'and this person, and' to show that
)
ladyand her children-.info ' his own lthuee; where, they. there' was - not' the slightest foundation ilia the Clain she
remained from the lath September, -1840,0 . the. Ist 'of set up to behis viife. - Ile would putsLord-Fhintingtower
April,; 1852; bird altiriagthat'aieriod -he expended alto- into the witness-box, and he would tell them that he was
gPtileisfsit-their support the. ium of 19g'.... •. : • . ~ '.: now a married man, and the jury could HOW judge orthe
By Sergeant Shee --I had• no- cOmmuriication With eatitarire gr'aritY of the cause -Which they hid tat decicTe.
I.ord'Hubtingtow.et!s4olieitor before-106k the lady. into Lorldaffuntingtavver would pledge hie-oath - that nothing
'llYll9l4q,....:The•parish eolieitera' I believe;"didappla to like a-ceremony .of marriage ever took' plats be
hnn, and I heard that an answer was tebeieed,. to the himanid the femaie in 'que`iticei and eertainly'if lie was
; • t , ;
effect thatsthe svamarr was net: the -wife of Lord.Thint, notThiPeaking the truth -his -conduct had
.heenspech as
i9,gt'9Wer... •, :-,•‘-- : ' '" ' - - : weed- dis.graCe'him- for ever In' the '64.-4 the *Fp.
-----, ' - P-1...ia,.,-tifyatt,dope.ed. thacilient- rate, the Service Since his intercourse with Elizabeth Accord harraeased,
of the defendant-arid- the lady :in:- eneatien in
.1845. 'At" - he:harl'intrerfEd the- danYhtet of ;an hendiirable.barenet
that timq they. ivied insthe-Waildswortharosals theyavate of family 'thud fanlineatly eqiial te his Own, -by 'whOth he
called; AIL, ;tad Mre.--Tellernaalre;7and It' was alWays na, had issue ; and thb.aury-wouldCensidet 'Whether it 'wok -
dents:fed! .that. they Were' dian ,nd - witej'-2,l,Vitriess.rei' likelybe *-Weurd 'We- 'dared to lake euala aiitep'if thete.
1*44 4144, ?Alth ', Altii. Tolfernaelie'imtlFig4p;; when. she
,le.ft had i bee.- any, fetindatirai for - the assetden of .previons
he.r,t?ectinae:she ;was unable-10 'friylier..her Wagei .ana.-. roarriagetu-i Ther'leaiiied• sergeant then referred to the '
longer.. .hißelarnazyi -184-k the defenoant:-sent:herTand nature of sthe alaitir;- htid 'mid - thatalthough lie did net
her mistress into Maiimoilthilirreito-a"plaee 'called- Blue desire to cast any imputation epori the nlaintif4lie could
Basswe H. u, and..-the.deferident •used to 'con there to" nerthelpeallingicethe'attentiOn of the jurytfiefaaftl44ll-
- die, lady's:and; wlien. h e Was absent- they:continually" . 1849, when the application ' for relief wris,"-triitTanade.tp
cerrespeided.s together:- .In-,Septereber, •"/8:18, witness himaand'itapiiriesrinstitiiteifon the subject, he Was Oil-
and heropastres.s returned 'to London, 'and went to 1-04ge• tinctly told that Lord HuntingtoWer denied in the
at a 4ias Vottre's; ivi.'Kemiingto*ktnic ,slid in:Octet:ker. positive terms that' the lady in 'question had any, claim
of "that.Year.:a quarrel took place between the defendant 111301 -.him -as ' his wife, and • yet, afterthie,
.he. chose to
of
gad ;they never •'lived' together 'after-- take her' and her children into his house; and he had no-
hips,vEti
„, I, Tle,defendants diirieg:the 'tithe ;she' Hied with body to:thank:for the expense lie had "incurred but hiin-','
u.sve. ntly changed Ilia naine;•but-her Mistiess al= - self. At-he-only
ame tha -effect 'of this prOceedineWas, te'endeay6ni:'
w4zs went ?by the same -nt hi' ilad, arid they ,a - to extort money unfairly and iiiiprefierlifrbin theiiiielet`
ways ived' together . as. man • nag! wife: .• The- f rst 'child ' of - tord.Huntingtower ; and he consideredi, therefore;
70,i',8,1:-.l_74tiePtenilser,,-1845; the•seboritt'in I•.4neeniber-, that the'plaintiff waS -.disentitled to' that. "coileidetajtion '
-1.°1?) MR thqatbird hi; 'January, 1843. :!Tlie defendant which; ,otherwise, tst,-, thescote' of. hrinianitY: fie W'otild .
°blesalways PPRP4rO:I to. be very kind to the" Children-and:the. have deserved at. their hands. The 'Only citieetiisic, in 'the-
t used toicall hitch papa. When:they lived in Ken- cause, ,howeier, - Was, .' whether it had 'teen inaffe'olit" lek
ingtOn-lane, ;the, defendant and his -.lgdy"pagseci asiMa..l 'the satisfaction of the jury that any marriage ceremony'
and. 31173,. LangfOrd.i :They travelled.' aboet;te. a great had been 'performed inScotlarid ' • and he -Siihinitt.6d,'-t?
many places, heals asumed many different anamee. them-that thereewas- net- a singlietittle '"of'' e'vi'dence
The defendant was • frequently very- Ain't of -cash, and - make. thatafket.- '
one place a ,He wag not prepared-to justify the
atdi t
_ress, was-put iiii- Air-they wrepenest, conduct of Lord -Huntingtower up to the'tline- When-
- • •' -
tut of doors. - Upon. one, `occasion; when they" he carte forward and avowed his 'Shaine! 'dud:di;':
clared :46 , the'werid' that the lady whom lie had per-,
livln-g it.PeAltra. .something s6B' 'Said by' the landlady,'
Which earne „t,0,, the knowledge of .theedefendane; and mitted to use his
-name-for so long
.was not kis *ilea
he's to het upotethesubjeLV anal 4041 her sayinc,' but his concubine-. If he had seduced, hershe Was':2li4iind
th4p- it) had,4ien , stated, thatLhaiiiiak .k.,'enii,i'io eeparate by sierytie:Of ' relftlair. and duty te.provlde` fel.' her,: hilt.
from. her Joit3la. 'es.el.-belold hor triilikkelieflselneeteheed,, :he was not`horaidSttss'iliake her his wifes arid there was
for that her mistress- was: his wife,' /f he' Mari-Wham- 'nothing•what:ESiai4 the' ease to show that 'lke ever liad
othe *Ou*n,she_ could 7indist 'Nth fel- bigamy, - t hia such an intention, Lord Huntingto*er was aman eVi.-
"'vat! u(180-sTbef defendant-fat/41k itatne time said to deafly fri' 1)&3400. of very much sense---he had. no.
Ilea that he had asked:his irMthees.LZ‘biisent to Marry, ;dots said ' andiwrittert 'My foolieh things, -but he ehal-
buteould not get:it, and • therefdrelheltafiller to Se9t,' lengeitthe jury- to' point nut any portion of the evidence
land, and as his father was a, Seotcle peen' it Made the . which would Show anything like an admission on his part
engaoena.iyiore-. hieding. -- I.7sion-inolthgr occasion she, that he had been married -to this woman. Waisathere,'
We
it her mistress's room and fonnd 'fierrraiing,: and any evidence to juStify'the jury in coining" to conclu-
,
the: "defendan' t. said to: her, "Here ix your mistress 'Allis: sion the effect of which would 'be to bastardise, the issue
tiering hem* I:have.hurned-some' letterS.'''' "'Phone were he had by the lady-to-Whom' he,-was'noW married; and
t
!seine fragmentssof burnt letters: in the -grate at time. which were now acknowledged as legitimate? With re-•
In • - • ' -
October, 184$,,.when they were living in Rehni t - Bard to the- letters that had been put iii;-it appeared to,
there
lane,. the defendant. came ,to. the hoifid one Sul hiclallyf a°lll ' him they were utterly.unimportant; and that they rather,
treks,was-.9;lyi Oentstruggle :between': him: -and her mix- 'tended:to negative-the fiki.o of 'a marriage:than to suppert
,
rockiri. Ce"silP .4'i':-
wanted, as she underitood, to go :into a it, for 'in no single letter did-the defendant ever addiess:the,
suaass-d,Ple Seine:letters and.riestroftheni: Ile 'did not lady as his wife, and -they Were all such as would te'i,rit-,
• i# , getting into •th ' room,- - &raja '•-aws • scuff- "ten by man . - •' th th b ' la. bd to
was over they e a er - opee A a to a mistress, ra
.er._ , ari, y a ue an
..„
wql4tidbwri.stairs,, arid the defdnaant' said a wife.' The real nature of the connection between_these.
in the reaeaea of
• ,
his ~ -.- a„ s ,the landladythat her iniette4s was net , partieeheehoeld !thew to be this.' In 1843 the defen-.
In
~„,,i,a1e,tn4411,1
wife v Tfielix"r- 3' asked•-hitn. if 'she' was 'not his'dant,. who was at that time' living at Bath with his Mo.
t reeS4,saaildf that
4sih94-;l4.,;_hoicife,
alight her into her heinee ? Her mis-: ther, had a quarrel with her, and left her house, and
said,: upon which the defend'ant took ' a. cottrige'Jn-1.16 neighhoUrhopcl and Eliaabeth.
your4ights, lStaVaker;" alit to pounds yon might gain Acford; who' was a''pereon
,in a very humble condition
will, spend a tortalie or. theuean ?°the fr(iiii 7 ' My.mether of life,- came' to live with him as a cook, and an improper,
il th
place on a Sunday, an e. des againSt it." This took' intimacy took place between thain for Many months he- :
fendant treat 'so 'Mech. fore theafmirney tO • Scotland, when the matriege was
disturbance that, Miss Pottle threa,tenea. • t
police. Part.Pkgkt"9: to son ref the represented to have liken place. He should show. them
16:•f"-ftaktlwant Y'
eeufflea her. mistress's thumb was' that the'' only inetite 'the defendant- ha;a for going to •
sprained 15y. thp,slafendant. ,vh the' la threat;.- Scotland was that he was deeply involved in .debt gand
ened to call 4.08 police' the"N -"'
him in • every
, away, nd diffic ides "arid' bait' writs'out. against ' '
he never .ciunc to the house again; • ,a,
latter were then put iti-,'!.ara'l ii.ablai ~,a, . .epun. tna,
.in'En. gland, and the lady 'n question acconas'
A npiiipeNief.
written bythe slefenslautste 'Elizabeth A;.4. been pained him there as his concubine, but he had never the
--(mil,. dining' - li htest intention ,of Making her his wife. He proposed
the period of intercourse. They were; all
theUt- date- tsogput -Lord "Huntingtower- into the' box as 'aWitnesS;
and merely signed " 11,7_,.. .The. contents' were unimpor- He was fully aware of hietposition, and that he .would
tant as regarded theliaue in dispute, but some portions.
have to admit the 'misconduct- bf his youth ; but he would
of them
.created-agoed deal of 'amusemente.'s-t I all
er mrdear
-, In ''''', the make the avowal-not only from a sense' of duty to him-
letters he addressed the lady ,as lie self insthepositiorrin which was placed by ' this pro-
one Oahe letters the defendant requested the lad_yp.ot' to eeed but he would also do so because felt it was
write again.to.Devonshire-place, and entreated her to due tog'the lady' whom he had made his Wife and by
keep her Own counsel, and,he said if she did,' everything.. who he had children', • to' state distinctly to'. ;he world
yet wool d f, turn
.up from e, In smother he, pr;).- that there was no foundation for the clam 'ea up by
England, oranywhere else. ' - '' - •
mised to send her.2l., and. as she appeAred to hale in 1-. this woman to be his wife, • and that had never before
mated t 4 him; Previously that the • butcher she 'Wee deal gone through the eeremony•of marriage either. in Scot:
ing with had not yet objected to continue giving credit, 130,
is iseue•Lky the
he advised her to order in another largejoint Upon the
.L_ord Huntingtower was then called as a witness. He
, _.,
strength of it, a: they-- did not' 'know-when "he -inight said--1 am the defendant in this action. I aril married,
change hifaminds _He likewise said that she couldtlet and there
rnarriaee. . I wt's Married 'in
-In 1843, my mother, Lad- Dyeatt lived
be aware of the price of feeding. bottles for
children or September 1851, to•Catherin'e Cabmilla Elizabeth Burke,
she would not have asked burn to get one;.
and he'isided the , daughter
_ of
,Sir Joseph Burke.' I ani tides thirty-
that saseosamon soda. water bottle whe- the Very beA' two years °id
at
_Oath, and I took a cottage about Y ' unites' -.
thing far. tase purpose, witlaa piece of feather piit over'
from
the neek,-fer the-child t4l suck throw h. ' lii "hriirtetter , Bath. I engaaed Elizabeth A and two
her sister y
the defendant.
afterwards an
toldthe lady lie had just-received 'her so- ' servants• the ;is. nner-'o'beok and I the latter as praarlsomut-
co, nd S'alea,r7sletter, -and - asked her to- Come to hife Maid ;said housemaid.. •They came to 'live With .meaS'
a" Graveeendsmith..directiceis how 'she could de' so ' iii my Servants in December 1843,s:tad seen
wlefrtittslia6tr
smariner ,to escape observation: He'' then went. on imptoper intercourse took ',place between' me and Eliza=
wleasatyotl)tat he had.hired a cot for the babys'for whiCh he beth ,A.eford. ! I .left. Bath in 1844, and went to. the
that the aY
hay:a:crown a.week. •He then infortned her - Bridge-house
orsiliwotaesl,ibieneaLusonedionu.ndTerhgetdroedastobnatl
a sea of his landlady had been very ill the alaylka heigjE O. . '
S Eke ileidan,,-.
. .
. and 141
the bands Of the sh • '-
zueue.e of having eaten two taw carrots execution against, me were in . . sheriff of
ss- ae s. . Ministered calomel to him- and 'also' a' tre- Scam rsetesiae: I sent for 'Elisabeth Aeford, , arid -she _,-.•
..„,,,,roe - eof cu. . ,
!,._ It • -... .
.. tor oil, which had made him all iight. n 4 maiirLondon -, and -we afterwards went togethee
...is . Innis letter .ordered her not to fol-get the to." 4 number of places!,
Pkts- -**ta ties.' Ina i I assumed the nanne''''lWz
, - VrOg-gedbitit ' ow at bein I think it lkais
fourth. letter •the defendant eia- MtisTaghten, and-she Passed as my' wife: ~. as
as ss sslaa'aiairo4 d thus r-ea" I at from his -" deareSt roVe. 7' in 4n1844 that, I went to :Edinburgh, I' went titi ere..
\:':.%\`--4.-14. -- • ' teasass..-i-: -am- In very low 'spirits -and to tout of the way of the sheriff's officers and I.:dfdl•
--as --- a. .64 ;have no. sigma_ ,s. sat .
next ,„
~
~
~ .
sge
those which weremuch ' • 'e. two so by the advice of my solicitor, to avoid being impri: ire'l ValSflailaj • tiffs case. At the time th
relied on in support soned for debt. I took a cottage near Edinburgh, and
the were written I sent for Elizabeth Acford, and she came to me by the

steam-b Oat, and we lived together - in-the .cottage-for
about three or five weeks.—lt was my .object-to have a
residence openly situated,',-so that I could' see every one
who approached, as I was afraid of thershetiff's officers,
and the outer gates 'were locked,. and I alWays.kept ~the
keys. Elizabeth -Acford • was • not ;called by r,nyt name
while we lived at phi cottage. , I don't know that she
was called by any pane, Certainly net by, that of. Mrs.
Tollemache. She ,accompanied
.ms, once or twice for a
walk on a Buedayi.;viliich.was, thennlyalay I could go
out withbut fear of arrest. I never introduced ber to any
one in Scotland as:my. wife, and I swear I was never
married to her in -Seotiatid. or -anywhere 'else. All the
time she'was with me I was in considerahledifficulties,
and I believe that, by the letters I wrote to her I was
the first to put-it into her head to set up the claim to be
Lady HuntingtOWeil. - ' -
Cross-examined—l was born in 1820, and in 1842 I
was a bankrupt. In 1844 I was insolvent. •At the
time I went to Scotland the Commissioners of Taxes had
a claim against me, from which I . was not released by
my bankruptcy.. I had also incurred a- debt tO Israel
Alexander and other persons between my bankruptcy
and my insolvency. Ihelieve that the Crown can issue
writs out of England into' Scotland or Ireland. I can-
not say without looking at my accounts whether
any other perioni ' had Obtained. " judgments against
me. Before. I went to Scotland, _Elizabeth Acford had
gone dovin to her friends in Devonshire. This was after
we had lived together in the way I have described. I
don't recollect if I wrote to her to join me in Scotland, but
very probably I did, . Before -we went to Scotland she
went by my name, and -she • did the same aftemiards. I
went by the name of Tolleinache inScotland, but I don't
know what nacre she went by.' My man servant knew
that we were not married.' - -She used to takelher :meals
at the same table with me, -and tbe .servants called-her
" ma'am." -I have spOken of her as Mrs: Tollenioche,
but never as my wife. The reason was, that ,she was not
my wife. I could never have obtained any respectable
apartments if she had not passed as my. wife. The rea-
son I left Scotland was because I was informed that at
the suit of the Crown 'a -sheriff's officer was justified in
breaking an outer door, and the moment I heardit A
bolted, and spent all one miserable 'day on the side'ol
Holyroed Hill, and then started for England. I remem
ber burning letters od.severaloceasions, and it. is 'Fern
probable that on some
,occasions Elizabeth Acford cried.l
On the day the scuffle took place in liennington-lane, I
went to see her; and observed her .in the act of putting
two letters: in her pocket, and as Irecognised the hand-
writing of the address, and knew from-whom they cane,
I insisted upon baring them, and took the letters away
from her by force. I not know that I hurt her when
I did so. The letters I.took from her are in ceurt;,: I
wanted afterwards to go into her room to see if there was
anything there belonging to me, and' she prevented me
from doing-so. 'Up to the time of this occurrence I, al-
lowed he a sovereign.a week, but since, then ,I have ,not
giv-n her any, money. The.statement with regard to the,
thousand pounds is virtually true, butwhatl really said
was that if she had a thousand pounds she would `no
doubt be able to annoy me a great deal; I'mean in the
way she is doing to-day. I also. said to her at the
same time, that although; I was myself , without
means, my family would assist me' in repudiating the
claim she was setting up solely t 6 extort money. There
is no doubt that all she wants is money. 'I
have not
given her any since she has set up :the claim to be my
wife. I have o.fferedto take the children and bring them
up, and I am ready.to make an, allowance to her as
Elizabeth Acford, but not as my wife. I never told the
witness Alfyatt that she was my wife. : I am not in the
habit of talking to my servants. -I. am sure I never said
to her that if I married again I might be committed for
bigamy. She must be mistaken.
Mr. Bramwell—Did you never say to her that, as
your father was a Scotch peer, it 'Would make the cere-
mony in Scotland more binding ?—Lord Huntingtower
—I never said anything of the sort. It is a lie.
Cross-examination continued—I have -no recollection
of saying that if the lady had her rights she would have
a title too. _ . ,
Mr. Bramwell—l believe you had-a very-strong feel-
ing for this lady ?—Yes, I certainly had.
Mr. Bramwell:- -Why did: you give her up ?—Lord
Huntingtower—ls this question relevant ? Ardl obliged
to answer it ? --- . -
Mr. Bramwell—Was it at your mother, Lady Dysart's
request, that you gave her up ?--Lord Ifuntingtower—
I gave her up for several reasons.. 'I consider that our
connection really terminated-hi January, 1848: ,'... - •
Cross-examination_continued74 . am nowin the receipt
of an allowance from mj.fainily. . It is not given to me
upon the condition that • I have no further connection
with this woman. The allowance may be stopped at any
moment. , -
....
Sergeant Shee said this was the defendant's case.
Mr. Bramwell.replied.. He said he was quite ready to
admit that a very momentous inquiry-ai involved in
the present issue, .but still he 'was sure that the question
would be decided fairly. He felt quite assured , that,
whatever might he the result of that-day's proceedings,
the- point at issue-between Lord Huntingtower ;and the
lady, who, 'notwithstanding' what hadpassed, be would..
still call Lady XfUntingtower, 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
theriLin.sayince that he-ought to be paid the money he
'had expended' in the Siihsiitence 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 probablyihave td be deeded 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
e sued. They had in evidence . that the defendant had
or many years declared that Eliiabeth Aeferd 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 A.cford,. thereby - dearly declaring
that in point of fact she was his wife. ;'Why did the, de-:
fendant burn the . letters that were in her pcissession;?.
Why was the unhappy-lady abused and wounded in the •
attempt to gain possession of other letters ? Why •was.
the defendant guilty of-this diecieditable outrage upon a
Woman, whether she was his Wife or not, it-he had not
Some important object, such as the concealment .of evi'-
dence of his marriage, to attain ? Then let t'heni lo6k at
the. paltry excuse he matte for going to Scotland at as_.
pretending that. howealt .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 hate reinained,
'for liewas just in the same position.; and it was absurd
to suppose i that the reason -he gave for his journey was
the correct one.- 'Wafrit not miicli'More reasonable
that, the -lady having left hini -and gone home. to her
t
:friends, he should .have induced her to, return to him by.
• a prniniAedf marriage, ,and that he took her •to!Scotland
for' 't-lit 049861 It w true that the .defendant had.
been - called, -and, Itlaat:he had, upon ~ his oak' denied
that itSs.so; They, wohld,e,howevereonsider his po-
sitiOA4n connection. with , thiwinquity; 'and also his cha,-.
raCteraLeordieg;to his:own admission:and his own-writ'-
ten statements..• Was-a
man who talked-Of. gettiag-a.
fool-lcrvivelini. six iriindted pounde fOt his acceptance
for athbusand, • who talked of , cheating honest trades-
men'• mia Made a joke, .about pteipal-credit, as; he termed
it, iiBrthy of much 'Consideration ? • Why, they "were
actSINF which a niamdeserved to stand , at the bar of a
,crinqinth allit- • -and when they talked of his being the
son of -the g.arl of: Dysart, and a(mereber!of a -high and'
'nhble_:. tainlly, all- he ponld say :was; 's6 much thernoie
'disgrace
,for him. -It was undoubtedly a very' painful'
-ii.equiry, and no doubt the question‘was, in- point Of faet, -
Involied, whioh, 'of the. two wives was to be Made the
pctithrbut-the jury'at th@ same, tiinowenld bear in
Mind that'ithat question was really not now at issue,
bit that the only point they had to. decide wag, whether
the plahlgilhad
.reasetiabl,y.made out- that he was en;
tilled . tiP the ;Mope; he ,:had expended; rand he felt. as-
anred they would not return-art • unjust verdict because
Othersnbjeets,rnig,ht be involved-in the inqiiiry • •
,Baron'Alderson then summed'-up. Ile said that no
learned counsel; or anybody else, ever asked for an un-
juSt verdict"; but he doribted-very much Whether, in the
present case, Mr. Bramwell was not doing that _which
be professed his intention not to 'do. The plaintiff, had
thenglit ht itVii=tist a woman who was living away from
a man, upon the supposition that he. was her husband ;
andif be had really boon,her husband, ho was justified
inl doing so, for the law of England allowed a wife to
pltdge her . . husband's- credit. -for ' necessaries. -What
evnlence, however; -was there that 'any 'marriage 'had
taken place, and yet the present very- serious issue 'had
arisen because the plaintiff had chogen'te.gite 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 arid wretched the home of her who
Clearly had been married to thedefendant in the open day;
and in the presence other,family and-friends I What-
ever. might be said by•the counsel for the plaintiff, there.
could be no doubt thatit ,was impossible for the Jury to
find a verdict for; him Without at thosame 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 thesubject, 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 defendant 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 hp, surely there ought to be some evidence of what
really did take place at the time, and the hear Say,
statements of parties made several years afterwards
ought not to be taken as proof of such a marriage hav-
ing taken place. Surely such evidence as this would not
be_shificient for reasonable men, particularly when the
Very, serious consequences that must result from an ad-
verse . decision were taken into consideration. There
• was also thia,faet, which appeared to him to be very im-
Poitint. If a marriage of any kind did really take place,
the
°
V le
Y - 1 taotrin a' caensai 'ni nga lneciduqteuhs question otino precise
h mustadt ibten
beenew wheneil
asked'awa itroccurrede
-aware
opfo alln t ht ier;e'." sub-
ject. L The learned judge proceeded to say that the jury
were not required to decide that no marriage did take'
place, but it would be sufficient for them to say that the