The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 30, 1867.

MES. YELVERTON'S CASE—This Day,

HOUSE OF LORDS.

APPEALS -.--JUDGMENT-LONGWORTH (OR YELVER-
TON), PAUPER, APPELLANT, AND YELVELTON AND
•
ANOTHER RESPONDENT.
In this well-known case, lately argued before their
lordships, judgment was delivered this morning, and
a large number of persons crowded the approaches
to the Howe anxious to obtain admission. Only a
few comparatively could be accommodated.
Neither Mrs. Yelverton nor any of her friends
attended.
The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the wool-
sack at a quarter before eleven o'clock, and there
were also present Lord Cran worth, Lord Westbury,
and Lord Colonsay. Lord Camoys took a seat in
the body of the house apart from the law lords.
The Lord Chancellor stated the circumstances
under which the appeal was brought in an interlo-
cutory judgment from the Court of Session in
Scotland, and explained the nature of the previous
appeal to the House of Lords. After that appeal
the present appellant alleged that Major Yel-
verton had, in the presence of his brother,
the Hon. Frederick Yelverton, and in the
presence of a nurse, named Marsh, who was since
dead, stated that he had been married to the appel-
lant, Maria Theresa Long worth. This person
meant was alleged to have mentioned the fact to
the Rev. Edward George Campbell, the chaplain
of the Courthouse at Leeds, who, in his turn, in-
formed the appellant. Then arose the question
whether Major Yelverton might not be put upon
oath in the matter. It had been held by the Court
of Session that the admission to oath was incom-
petent after the judgment had been extracted, but
he held that the reference to oath was competent at
the time when the minute was taken. But then
again it was held that it was incompetent in a de-
clarator of marriage, and where other persons were
concerned. He was of opinion that since the Acts
11 George IV. and 1 William IV., transferring con-
sistorial matters to the Court of Session, which had
been referred to such reference to oath, was not ad-
missible ; that it could not be admissible in the
description of evidence involved in this case. He
held, too, that the reference could not be made
when the interests of third parties were involved.
It was before them that Major Yelverton was mar-
ried to Mrs. Forbes, and if the first marriage was
legal the second marriage was clearly illegal. Then,
again, he held that a reference to oath in this case ne-
cessarily involved an admission of criminality. Ho
must confess that he had been guilty of bigamy, and
no one was compelled to declare in seam turpitu-
dinem. If, on the other hand, he refused, Mrs.
Forbes would be deprived of all her rights. He
considered the Court of Session was right in the
exercise of a sound judicial discretion in refusing
the reference, and in his opinion the appeal must
be dismissed.

Lord Cranworth said the Lord Chancellor had
been kind enough to show him his judgment, and
as he fully concurred in it, it was not necessary for
him to offer many observations. No doubt refer-
ence to oath had been permitted in some matrimonial
cases. But if there had been no marriage with Mrs.
Forbes, he doubted whether there would have been
any reference to oath in this case, because, in a
declaration of marriage, there must necessarily be,
under all circumstances, the interests of third parties
involved. On general principles ho thought that
such reference I:should be excluded in all cases
of this sort.

Lord Westbury said it was not his intention to
pronounce any formal judgment in this case. He
had attended on the first day of the hearing, but
had been unable to be present on the subsequent
days, in consequence of a very severe domestic
affliction. Reference had been made to his ab-

sence, and ho had felt bound, therefore, to advert
to it. At the same time he felt bound to say that
what he heard on the first day showed him very
clearly that the apcllant had no ground on which to
rely. lie felt bound to offer these few remarks in
explanation.

Lord Colonsay said that after the expression of
opinion by the noble and learned lords who had pre-
ceded him the case was practically decided, but i❑ a
case of this sort he felt it most desirable that the law
of Scotland should be made clear upon the point.

When the matter first came under his consideration
:n an earlier stage, he came to the conclusion that
he reference could not be maintained. Since that

he had considered the case more fully, and saw no
ground for altering his view. Having explained
very minutely the law of Scotland as it bore upon
the point, the noble lord said he had come to the
conclusion that there was no ground in the case for
maintaining the reference, and that the judgment of
the court below ought to be affirmed.

The Lord Chancollor then put the motion that the
judgment of the Court of Session be affirmed, and
it was carried 11C111. dis.
The Appellant (nrs.Yelverton) has therefore been
defeated in another stage of her case.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
130VILL V. COWAN.

In this case the plaintiff applied for an injunction
to restrain the defendant from using an apparatus
applicable to mill purposes, for which he had ob-
tained a patent. The defendant denied that such
apparatus was any novelty, or that he had used it
at his mill.

His Lordship, in delivering judgment to-day,
said that he was clearly of opinion that the patent
had been infringed, notwithstanding, as was usual
in cases where there was a desire to evade the law,
some alterations had been made in the apparatus by
the defendant. The plaintiff might have availed
himself of some of the existing inventions which
he combined with his own to produce results not
previously realised; and according to such combina-
tion was considered a novelty, and had a right to
be protected. lie would accordingly grant the
injunction.