The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-09 00:00:00

A HARD CASE.

The case of Pierce Somerset Butler against the Vis-
count Mountgarret, which has just terminated, is re-
markable both for the variety and complication of the
details connected with it, and the magnitude of the in-
terests concerned. Ten thousand a year and a title fur-
nish tolerably strong inducements to a law suit, and
nothing less was involved in the present instance. Mr.
Warren's novel describes no more extraordinary inci-
dents than came out on the trial which was to decide
which of the parties in the present suit was to possess
the "Ten Thousand a Year" in question. The defen-
dant in the suit, the Viscount Mountgarret, is the son
of Henry Butler, the third son of the eighth Viscount
Mountgarret. The plaintiff is the son of the fourth son,
Colonel Butler. He brings the action against his cousin
on the score of the illegitimacy of the latter. Henry
Butler, the third son above mentioned, appears to have
been a veritable type of the Irish row', of the lastscen-
tery. He was extravagant, reckless, and liceritiou . It
is to be supposed that he possessed all those Irish attrac-
tions which proved so irresistible half a century ago.
His first exploit was to carry off the wife of a Mr. Bar-
rington, whom, however, he very soon deserted, as it
appears that his aim in these matters was not only love
but money. He then fell in with a Mrs. Colebrooke,
possessed, according to the speech of the plaintiff's
counsel, of every charm, every virtue, and, what was
more to Mr. Butler's purpose, from 1,2001. to 1,800/. a
year. The fascinating Irishman made, however, as short
work w;th Mrs. Colebrooke's virtue as be probably did
with her money. As the property of the lady, who was
a widow, was to be forfeited in the event of a second
marriage, this highly honourable gentleman preferred
making her a harlot, and his possible future progeny
illegitimate, rather than marry her and lose the income.
The fruit of this intimacy was a child, since dead. Some
ime afterwards another child was born, who died like.
Tn the course of the year 1810, the lady
removed to Edinburgh along with Henry Butler,
for the purpose, as alleged by the plaintiff, of hav-
ing a Scotch form of marriage gone through. Whether
Butler repented, or whether he absented himself
for the purpose of indulging in any of his favourite
pursuits, as suggested by the plaintiff's counsel, is not
known. It is certain that the lady was left in Edin-
burgh. There, proving how much the first step has to
do with the " road to ruin," this lady, described "as
the most fascinating and beautiful of women, and gene-
rous in heart and purse," fell an easy victim to the at-
tractions of a second seducer. Mr. Butler returned,
and found Mrs. Colebrooke living with that gentleman,
a Mr. Taafe, in the same house. A "scene" ensued.
Mr. Taafe was locked in one room—the fair cause of
this confusion walked with Mr. Butler into another,
and, after remaining with hint a short time, the ser-
vants were called up, and the two parties declared
themselves to be man and wife, in the presence of the
assembled parties. Poor Mr. Taafe was thrown
overboard by Mr. Whiteside's female paragon, and
Mr. Butler and herself lived together for a while as
man and wife until he took it into his head to turn
her away. In despair she returned to her late
admirerenceT. I
with Whom she
Mr again took up her 1
,
th
residaafen e meantime . Butler maried I again. The bride this time was a Miss Harrison,r the
mother of the present defendant. The plaintiff sought
to eject the defendant from the succession, inasmuch as
the marriage with Mrs. Colebrooke was valid according to
the Scotch law, in which case that with Miss Harrison
was illegal. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and it
would seem that it could scarcely be otherwise, as there
could be little doubt that the marriage with Mrs. Cole-
brooke was a legal Scotch marriage.
This is a strange mutation of circumstances resulting
from the acts of a worthless man fifty years back. It
is only within the last three years that the evidence has',
been procured which established the fact of a marriage
between Butler and Mrs. Colebrooke. The result of
that evidence has been to transfer an immense fortune
and a title. The defendant is in every view of the case
entitled to the greatest commiseration. His mother'
was,
for
no fault of her own, disgraced, and himself
illegitimised, in addition to the loss of his fortune and
position ; and all this the fruits of a vice which even now
does not meet with that reprehension in society which
its enormity demands !—Deily News,

wise,