The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Nov. 26.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMO
NIAL CAUSES.

(Before the Judge Ordinary, Mr. Justice Wight-
man, and Mr. Justice Williams.)

SHEDDEN AND SHEDDEN Y. PATRICK AND PATRICK
AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

The hearing of this petition for a declaration of
legitimacy was resumed.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Couch appeared for
the petitioners ; Mr. Rolt, Q.C., Mr. Bovill, Q.C.,
Dr. Deane, Q.(3., and Mr. Powell for the respon-
dents ; and Mr. Bourke for the Attorney-General.
On Saturday some copies of deeds were tendered
in evidence on the part of the respondents for the
purpose of proving the statement of Mr. Rolt, that
in 1797 a deed was executed by which certain land
was conveyed to the mother of the elder petitioner
under the name of Ann Wilson ; that upon her
marriage with Vincent in 1799 the land was set-
tled to separate use under the name of Ann Shed-
den; and that in 1801, after her marriage with
Vincent, she disposed of it under the name of Ann
Vincent. The original deeds were not produced.
Their Lordships this morning held that they wero
not at liberty to receive secondary evidence of thorn
in the absence of sufficient proot that search had
been made for the originals, and that they could
not be found.
The case of the respondents was then closed, and
a few letters were given in evidence in reply on the
part of the petitioners.
Mr. Rolt, in summing up, pointed out that the
body of the letter written by Mrs. Vincent to Mr.
Patrick was in a different handwriting from the
signature, which was evidently that of an un-
educated person. He submitted that the respon-
dents had produced three distinct pieces of evi-
dence, each of which was conclusive against
the petitioners' case, first that of the let-
ters, especially the deathbed letters of Wil-
liam Shedden; secondly, the conduct of the elder
petitioner and his statements in the suit of 1848,
when all the facts were known to him ; and thirdly,
the parole evidence of habit and repute, which
completely answered the burlesque evidence on
that point relied on by the petitioners. Mr. Rolt,
in conclusion, said that Mr. Patrick was well aware
that there were persons of strong sympathies and
weak understandings who would still be willing,
notwithstanding the evidence given in the course
of this case, to listen to an idle tale cleverly told,
But he hoped that, if their lordships' judgment
should be for the respondents, the persons who, as
they were told, had given their assistance to the
petitioners, would bear in mind that there was
something due even to an adversary, and that the
gratification of their sympathies, although it
might be sport to them, might be ruin to the health
and fortune of an aged and honourable man.
Mr. Bourke regretted the unavoidable absence
of the Attorney-General, who had intended to ad-
dress the Court, and said that cases under the
Legitimacy Declaration Act might be divided into
three classes :-Ist. Where the only parties were
the petitioner on one side, and the Attorney-
General on the other, and where it would be the
duty of those who represented the Crown carefully
to investigate the claim and the evidence adduced
to support it. 2dly. Where there were two appa-
rently hostile parties, yet it might be the duty of
the Attorney-General to interfere on the ground
that the proceedings were of a collusive character.
And, 3dly. The Crown might interpose in cases
,where it might have a separate and distinct interest
in supporting or opposing the claim. He did not
think that the Attorney-General was called upon to
interfere in this case upon any of the above
grounds. The petition contained two prayers—one
that the petitioner should be declared legitimate;
the other that he should be declared a natural-born
British subject. The last was a question of per-
sonal status distinct from that of a capacity to in-
herit or the right of succession. If his parents
were not married he owed no allegiance as a duty
incident to his birth. He was then jilius nullius,
and the retrospective character of the law of Scot-
land could not alter his status. If his parents were
married, vas he a natural-born British subject ?
His father was undoubtedly so at his birth, and
there was no evidence that he was ever deprived of
that natural allegiance, which could not be for-
feited or dissolved except under special circum-
stances. The petitioner, therefore, being the son
of a natural-born subject, would, under the statutes
of Ann, George 11., and George 111., be a British
subject himself. The treaties of 1783 and 1794 did
not affect the status of the petitioner's father. There-
fore, the whole case came to this :—lf his parents
were not married at his birth, he was not, and if his
parents were married at that time, he was a natu-
ral-born British subject. But that was the exact
question between the petitioner and the parties
cited. The evidence was before the court. He did
not think it expedient, on the part of the Crown, to
interfere between the parties, and, as the Attorney-
General was desirous that this question should be
settled as soon as possible, he would only add that
if the court considered the evidence sufficient to
establish the first marriage, there was no objection
on the part of the Crown to the petitioner being de-
clared a natural-born British subject.
Mr. Collier replied upon the whole case. He
complained of the vehemence with which Mr. Rolt
had attacked the petitioner, and said he should en-
deavour not to follow the learned counsel's exam-
ple, although he should be obliged to deal some-
what harshly with Mr. Patrick. He submitted
that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case
in favour of a marriage between William Shedden
and Ann Wilson prior to his birth. As to the let-
ter of the 12th of November, 1798, he was in-
structed by Miss Shedden to say that if she had
believed it to be genuine she would never have
prosecuted this claim, and that if it wad genuine
there was an end of their case. But, on the other
hand, it almost, if not entirely destroyed the re•
spondent's case. He contended that the evidence
of habit and repute of a prior marriage was remark-
ably strong, considering that 60 years had elapsed
since the death of the parties, that lapse of time
being the misfortune of the petitioner and the fault
of Mr. Patrick. It was not until 1849 tbat any
evidence came into the hands of the petitioner
that his mother had ever claimed to be his father's
wife prior to the deathbed marriage, and he
then, for the first time, saw the affidavits which
had been sent by Mrs. Vincent to England with
the certificate of the second marriage. The
suppression of this evidence by Mr. Patrick
in the first suit, although it appeared from his own
letters that it had come into his hands some time
before, showed that the first suit was collusive. He
then commented upon the evidence of habit and
repute, and dwelt upon the improbability that a
merchant of high standing, a man'of mark, as Mr.
Shedden was admitted to have been, should have
lived openly for years with a woman of notoriously
bad character. Barr's statement that she was one
of the most abandoned women he ever knew was
inconsistent with all the rest of the evidence and
with the admitted facts. New York was then a
small town with not more than 30,000 inhabitants,
the lines of demarcation between different classes
were less strongly marked than at present ; it was
a matter of history that there was a great deal of
the old Puritanical spirit in American so-
ciety at the end of the last century, and it was
utterly incredible that William Shedden should
have lived an openly profligate life for years, and
yet that none of the persons who remembered him
should know anything about it. Unless the re-
spectable witnesses, Mr. Arden, Mr Ogden, Mr.
Vermilye, and others had committed deliberate
perjury without any possible motive, it was clearly
proved that Mr. and Mrs. Shedden were reputed
to have been respectable married people and to
have occupied a highly honourable position. This
evidence was confirmed by that of Miss Jean Shed-
den, whose recollection was distinct and appeared
to be accurate. The only witnesses on the other
side were Neilson and Barr. Neilson's evidence
amounted only to this, that he did not meet Mr.
Shedden much in society, and that he looked on
him as a bachelor. Barr evidence was so strong
that it was incredible, for it was impossible that a
woman of such an infamous character as hel had
ascribed to Ann Wilson should have lived with Mr.
Shedden without public scandal and censure, of
which there was not the slightest proof. The
deathbed marriage was not inconsistent with the
prior marriage. Many persons thought that mar-
riage ought properly to be regarded as a religious
ceremony, and when he was in his last illness Mr.