The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-16 00:00:00

THE TEL CASE.

The proof for Major Yelverton in the Scotch mar-
riage case was resumed at Edinburgh, before Lord
Ardmillan, on Friday. Mr. J. F. Drummond, Haw-
thornden ; Capt. Wrottesley, Staffordshire Militia ;
and Mr. John Blackwood, publisher, Edinburgh,
were called to prove that while stationed in Edin-
burgh Castle and Leith Fort in 1858 Major Yelver-
ton passed both in society and among the officers as
a married man. Mr. J. T, Atkinson, deputy-con-
troller of the General Post-office, Edinburgh, was
shown the envelope of a letter in process addressed
"Rev. Mr. Moonie, Rostrevor, Ireland," and de-
poned that it had reached the General Post-office,
Edinburgh, from the sub-office at which it was posted
on the evening of the 13th of June, 1858. He was
also-shown, for verification of the post-marks, an
envelope bearing the same address, posted at Hull
the 10th of June, 1858, and another addressed " Vis-
count Avonmore, Donnybrook-road, near Newry,
Ireland," posted at Boulogne on the 20th of June.
No further evidence was offered at this stage.

The Lord Ordinary having, on the 7th instant,
granted a commission, at the instance of counsel for
defender, to take the evidence of lawyers in Dublin
upon the subject of the Irish marriage law, Mr.
Crichton, the Commissioner, sat at the Four Courts,
Dublin, on Wednesday last for the purpose, and the
evidence taken has since been published. The first
witness called was Mr. George Battersby, LLD ,
Q.C., who, in answer to the first question, stated
that the marriage of Protestants with Roman Ca,
tholics in Ireland is regulated by the statute 19th
George 11., cap. 13, which annuls all marriages
celebrated by a Popish priest between Protestant
and Protestant or Protestant and Papist, declaring
such marriages to be " null and void to all intents
and purposes, without any process, judgment, or
sentence of law whatsoever." There is no
other statute, he stated, affcctidg the vali-
dity of such a marriage, and the statute is now
in full force, and has been so treated by decisions
of the Courts both in England and Ireland. The
following are the principal questions put to
witness as to the application of the statute to
the present case, and his answers thereto :—Assum-
ing a ceremony of marriage to have been performed
in Ireland at any time in the year 1857 by a
Roman Catholic priest, between a male and female,
both of full age of 21 years, one of such persons
being then, and for several years previously, a
Roman Catholic, and the other of such persons
either then being, or having within twelve months
previously professed himself or herself to be a Pro-
testant, would such a marriage be valid by the law
of Ireland ? Clearly not. . . . .

Assuming that one of the parties married by a
Roman Catholic priest, though in fact a Protestant,
or though he had within twelve months previous to
the ceremony professed himself to be a Protestant,
did at the time of the ceremony make a represen-
tation that he or she was a Roman Catholic, and
that the ceremony of marriage was performed by
the priest on the faith of that representation, would
such party by the law of Ireland be estopped or
barred from pleading or proving in a court of
justice the invalidity or nullity of such
marriage, assuming that otherwise the marriage
would, by virtue of the statute to which you
have Already referred, be invalid ?—ln a matri-
monial cause in which the validity or invalidity of
such a marriage was the question at issue, such
party would not by the law of Ireland be estopped
or barred from pleading or proving the invalidity or
nullity of such marrige.
With reference to the statute 19th George 11., c.

13, sec. 1, will you state by what acts or deeds is a
profession of Protestantism evidenced or ascertained?
—The profession of Protestantism, to bring a case
within the Act, should be evidenced by acts une-
quivocal, such as receiving the sacrament or attend-
ing the religious rites of the Protestant Church, or
performing acts of religious duty which a Roman
Catholic would not do.

If a party were originally educated and brought
up as a Protestant, and had continued to a mature
period of life unquestionably a Protestant, would
not less evidence suffice to prove him a Protestant,
within the meaning of that statute, than would be
necessary if, being originally educated as a Roman
Catholic, and continuing a Roman Catholic to a ma-
ture period of life, his conversion to Protestantism
were asserted ?—ln the case of a party
originally educated and brought up a Protestant,
and continuing so to a mature period of life prima
facie he must be considered as still a Protestant,
and the onus of proving him a Roman Catholic
would lie upon the party alleging he was such
Roman Catholic. In the case of a man originally
educated a Roman Catholic, and continuing a Roman
Catholic to a mature period of life, prima facie he
would still continue a Roman Catholic, and the onus
of proving him to be a professing Protestant would
lie on the party alleging him to be such ; and the
fact should be evidenced by acts unequivocal, such
as receiving the sacrament or attending religious
rites of the Protestant Church, or performing acts of
religious duty which a Roman Catholic would not do.

Examined for the plaintiff—lf a man about to
go through the ceremony of marriage with a
Roman Catholic declared at the time that he
was a Roman Catholic, and thereby induced a
Roman Catholic priest to marry him according to
the rites of the Church of Rome, do you not con-
sider that such a declaration would be strong evi-
dence that the party making it was then a Roman
Catholic P—lt would be evidence, but whether
strong or not would depend upon the accompanying
circumstances—as, for instance, in the case of
" Gibbons v. Gibbons," where the party to be mar-
ried went to a priest who was not his parish priest,
and on being asked if he were a Catholic answered
that he was a bad Catholic, and thereupon, he
being a Protestant in truth, was married to a
Roman Catholic, such a declaration in my opinion
kvas not strong eTideuce, but the we4got pouible

.C:NlE,rvawifrow
evidence, if evidence at all, of his being a Roman
Catholic.

Mr. John Edward Walsh, Q.C., LL.D., was the
next witness examined, and the following are the
leading questions and answers :
If a ceremony of marriage be performed by a
Roman Catholic priest in Ireland between a male
and female of full age, one of whom is unquestion-
ably a Roman Catholic, and the other of whom is
at the time of such ceremony a Protestant, or had
professed himself or herself to be a Protestant
within 12 months previously, does such a ceremony
constitute a valid marriage ?—lt does not by the
law of Ireland.

Is it by reason of the statute 19th George 11.,
cap. 13, that such ceremony would not constitute a
valid marriage ?—That statute i 3 enough to reader
the marriage void ; but there are other statutes
which may affect the question, and also tend to
make it invalid.

Is it as indicative of policy, or by virtue of their
special provisions, that these other statutes may
operate upon the question ?—By their special pro-
visions some statutes make the celebration of such
marriages penal or criminal ; and, although the
penalty upon the Roman Catholic clergyman is re-
pealed by a statute of William IV., some of these
provisions may possibly still affect the question, but
not so as to weaken the operation of the statute
19th George 11., cap. 13.

In a suit ()triunity of marriage founded upon the
19th George 11., cap. 13, and upon the allegation
that one of the parties married was a Protestant, or
professing Protestant, to what period anterior to
the ceremony should the inquiry as to his or her
Protestantism or profession of Protestantism, neces-
sarily extend ?—To a year before the ceremony.
Is it by the religious profession of the party for
12 months previous to the ceremony that its vali-
dity is to be determined P—lf the party had pro-
fessed himself or herself to be a Protestant at any
time within the 12 months, and the other party
was a Roman Catholic, the marriage is void.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.-LIVERPOOL, DEC. 14.

(Befcre Mr. Baron Channell.)
Captain Wm. Wilson was brought up for sen-
tence this morning.
Baron Channell, in passing sentence, said—Wil-
liam Wilson, the jury have acquitted you of the
crime of murder, and, after an anxious and careful
in vestigation,have found you guilty of manslaughter,
and since the Court separated last night I have
given the case the most anxious consideration which
I could devote to it. I think it unnecessary to the
ends of justice to proceed upon the other indict-
ments, and I have now to sentence you for the of-
fence of which you have been convicted. Man-
slaughter is often complete in point of law where
there is little of moral guilt or enormity, but there
are other cases in which the law must visit the
offence with great severity on account of the enor-
mity with which it is accompanied. You are accused
by the prosecution not only with having caused the
death of the deceased by acts of most unauthorised
and unjustifiable violence, but with brutal violence,
with having dashed the man down on the deck
after repeated previous acts of cruelty, and
when he was in a state of prostration and de-
bility from disease, with having jumped upon his
chest when you were wearing heavy boots. The
jury have not only found you guilty of violence
which has caused his death, but they have solemnly
assured me, in answer to a question which I put,
that they believed you were guilty of most wanton
and brutal violence. This is a case of great enor-
mity, one which within my own observation I have
never scarcely seen paralleled, and I have ventured
into this explanation to account for the sentence I
must pass upon you. You were placed in a situa-
tion which gave you some control and authority
over the men who were shipped, and who attended
you on your voyage, and you have not only wan-
tonly abused that authority with which the law
invested you, but under circumstances of the most
atrocious enormity. The sentence of the Court upon
you is, that you be kept in penal servitude for the
term of 20 years.
The prisoner, who manifested little emotion, was
then removed.

POLICE INTELLIqENCE.—Dec. 14.

MARYLESONE.—THE ATTEMPTED MURDER
AT PADDINGTON.—DEPOSITION OF THE INJURED
LADY.—One day during the past week, in pur-
suance of a prior arrangement with Dr. Wakefield,
Mr. Yardley paid a visit to the lady who was so
murderously assaulted at her residence, 5, Fulham-
place. After this he gave instructions that on a
future day the three prisoners, Thomas Puzey,
George Reeves. and Sarah Collett, should be taken
privately to the lady's address to hear her depo-
sition taken. Accordingly at one o'clock, In-
spector Braddick, 1) division, Sergeant Potter,
2 D, and House, 97 D, arrived in cabs
with the prisoners from the House of Detention,
Mr. Yardley and Mr. Phillips, chief clerk, were
already there. The prisoners having been placed
in the room, the old lady sat up in her bed and the
following depositions were taken. She said—My
name is Sarah Green. lam a widow lady, aged 71.
In the evening of the 24th October I was sitting in
my arm-chair in this room (the second-floor front).
My servant, Elizabeth Askew, was with me, and I
had a fire and a tight in the room, and sent Eliza-
beth as usual, for my supper. After she left I was
dozing in my chair, waiting for her, when some one
came to me right across the room from the door. I
looked up and saw that it was a tall man with a
black mask on. My eye caught the shadow of
another man. He came round the foot of the bed,
behind the tall man, and was between the bed and
the window. He was shorter than the other, and
seemed to be stouter. The tall man struck me on
the head four or five severe blows with something
that had a large knob at the end. I think I should
know the ball (meaning the knob) again. I begged
and prayed of him to take his hand away, and told
him that if he would take his hand away from my
throat, I would tell or do anything he Hied. When
I said this, he took hold of my throat, and pinched
me till I lost my senses; and when I had in some
measure recovered he came at me again, and gave
me some more blows, besides which he gave me a
most severe blow on the left cheek but I cannot say
with what. He again clutched my throat but tighter
than before, and I again became insensible. I could
he,;.! the other man up by the side of the bed, and
heard 14,7nething rattling at my desk, which was
locked. I ail`frwaids found on looking at it that
it had been broke open, but I missed nothing from
it. I saw the short
an turn his arm and clutch
LT
_
my watch from the pocket t: t the head of the bed.
Il
My plate was in a basket under he table, and I can-
not tell the quantity missing. The bort man had
a loose coat on, and this might have mat:: him ap-
pear stouter. The prisoner seems to be abo zit the
height of the taller one, but lam not certain. 1,17
hands which clutched my throat were like his. They
were thin long fingers. The life-preserver (which
was here introduced by Inspector Braddreth) is like
the thing I was struck with. When I recovered
my consciousness I found I was alone in the room.
I knew the prisoner Collett well. She was employed
by me as my nurse last winter, and sat up with me
at night. This was about seven or eight months
ago. She was with me twice. In consequence of
suspicions I had about her I discharged her, at the
same time warning her that she must not enter my
house any more. About a fortnight before the rob-
bery I heard that Collett had been to my house.
When Collett was here I kept my plate in the bed-
room, near the window, and my watch was always
kept in the watch pocket at the head of the bed,
and she knew it well. I did not hear the men
speak whilst in my bedroom.
The lady, who gave the above statement in a very
calm and lucid manner, had it read over to her,
when she affixed her signature to it.
The three prisoners were again taken in cabs to
the House of Detention, to be brought up at this
court next Wednesday.

SOUTHWARD.—THE FRENCH MERCHANT
AND THE BALLET DANCER.—A rather pretty-
looking young woman named Annette Watkins,
stated to be a ballet dancer at one of the West-end
theatres, was charged with stealing bills of ex-
change to the amount of 4,000 francs, 140 francs,
12s. in English money, and an overcoat, the pro-
perty of Mr. Arthur Ruggswedean, a French mer-
chant, under the following circumstances :
The prosecutor, through an interpreter, said that
on Friday night, a fortnight ago, he was supping
with a countryman of his in the Haymarket. During
the evening the prisoner was introduced to him by
a friend, and be accompanied her to her lodgings in
Stamford-street. He then had about him 15 bills of
exchange, representing 4,000 f., 140 f. in gold, 12s.
in English money, and an overcoat. When he
went to bed he placed all his property in a drawer
by his bedside. In the course of the morning he
heard a shuffling noise in the room, and on getting
out of bed ho missed his overcoat and waistcoat,
besides the bills of exchange and all the money.
His waistcoat, minus the property, was found on
the mat by the street door, which was discovered
open, thus showing that the party who assisted in
committing the robbery had hurriedly left the
house. Witness returned to the bedroom, and told
thosrifioner as weu R$ he could ))Y *igUrsp WO WO;

and the police were called and every place in the
house searched, but none of the property could be
found.
Peace and Holmes, officers of the M division,
deposed that they had investigated the affair, and
they were of opinion that other persons were con-
cerned in the robbery. They therefore asked for a
remand to make further inquiries.
The prisoner most strenuously denied all connec-
tion with the robbery. It must have been done by
some other person in the house.
After considerable discussion between the solicitor
for the prosecutor and the magistrate, the prisoner
was remanded for a weekjbail being taken for her
appearance.

LAMBETH.—A HEARTLESS BIGAMIST—Henry
Sorman Hamond, who described himself as a com-
mission agent, and who is son to a Kentish magis-
trate, was finally examined before the Hon. G. C.
Norton on a charge of bigamy, and also deserting
his wife and family.
The prisoner had, in the first instance, been
brought up from Portsea on a warrant charging
him with deserting his wife and three children and
leaving them chargeable to the parish of Camber-
well ; and, from inquiries that had been instituted
by Mr. Sedgeley, the relieving officer of the parish,
it was found that he had also been guilty of bigamy.
Certificates were produced and evidence given to
show that, in the month of May, 1843, the prisoner
had been married at the parish church of West
Ham, Essex, to Catherine Walsh ; and, in October,
1860, at the district church of St. George, Battersea,
to Annie Landon, widow, both of whom are at pre-
sent living. There was also present during the
examination a respectable-looking female whom
the prisoner had seduced under a solemn promise of
marriage, though a married man at the time, and
subsequently deserted, leaving her with three
children to support as she could.
The prisoner was fully committed for trial.