The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-21 00:00:00

7HE YELVERTON CASE.

This case came before Lord Ardmillan in the
County Session for debate on the proof.

Mr. Fraser said—There seemed to him to be six
difficult objections in this case. In one point of
view it might be said that there were no less than
40 or 50 objections, but they were capable of being
all embraced under six heads. The first of these
objections related to the question of ancestry and
the previous life of the pursuer. An immense mass
of evidence had been led at Manchester, chiefly in
order to show that Mrs. Yelverton's mother vas
not of illustrious lineage, and that the pursuer lead
therefore no right to the qualities—at least on the
mother's side—of pure blood. This seemed to him
to be the staple of the whole proof of the defen-
der. The pursuer's father seems to have been a
gentleman of family, but her mother, according
to the proof, had sprung from the plebeian race.
He objected to this as utterly irrelevant, because
the law said that a person eve❑ of the humblest
rank was as much entitled to justice as one of the
most exalted lineage, and, he, therefore, could' not
tell what that had to do with the case. In the
proof they had also declared the history of :the
pursuer's courtship with Dr. Alsop, who is a
brother of Mrs. Thelwall, which took place years
ago. He objected to this as being irrelevant, and
contended that it should be struck out altogether
from the proof—upon this ground, that it raised
an issue which had nothing to do with the case be-
fore the court. To answer the evidence on the other
side would require an immense body of proof to be
led, and it would be just as reasonable to lead
proof to show that Major Yelverton had been a
gentleman of most immoral life as to lead proof
to show that old Mr. and Mrs. Longworth were not
married. The proof led to prove whether or not
Theresa Longworth was married did not affect the
question at issue. He could have understood the
case if the defender had said the pursuer had de-
ceived him by representing herself to be possessed
of qualities of mind which she did not possess—that
she was wealthy, or that she had possessions which
she had not; buc it had long been established by
the laws of all countries that these circumstances
were not essential to marriage, and that deceit in
reference to these qualities did not constitute a
ground of nullity of marriage. Proof had been led to
attempt to show that old Mr. and Mrs. Longworth
were net married, but if this had been the case,'he
held that an illegitimate child had as much right
to justice as a legitimate one. He maintained that
it would be a great waste of time and money, and
moreover be a great hardship if he were compelled
to lead counter proof to show that the old Long-
worths were married.

Lord Ardmillan said the pursuer was certainly
as much entitled to justice if she were illegitimate
as if she were legitimate. If the lady pursuer chose
to begin her case by calling a witness to prove a
certain thing, it was perfectly competent for the de-
fender to lead counter proof.
Mr. Fraser said the first witness called by the
pursuer was called for the purpose of proving her
identity.

Mr.Gordon—Than she is a myth. (A laugh.)
Lord Ardmillan said one party could not possibly
be allowed to lead evidence as to a fact -7rithout the
other party being allowed to contradict it. He did
not think, however, that the matter was of the
slightest consequence to either side.
Mr. Fraser said it was of some consequence to
him, in so far as he would require to go to Man-
chester to get up proof to contradict the defender's
proof, which would cost a great deal of trouble and
expense.

Lord Ardmillan said the question about the
pedigree of the lady, and whether her father and
mother were married, appeared to him to have
nothing to do with this case, and he would have
had no hesitation in refusing prOof on these points
had it not been for what the defender had done.
Mr. Fraser said if the pumper had committed an
irregularity, it was the duty. of the Court to have
checked it. He held that iThen the evidence, for
the pursuer went on to deal with the lineage of the
lady, 'whether the elder Longworths were married,
wheitthe brothers were in trade, and whether
the grandmother kept a shop, the Court ought to
have prevented the introduction of such stuff into the
seemed.to be nothing else than to throw dirt upon
the pursuer. Ho considered the question as to the
lady's lineage to be nonsense from beginning to end.
The only question with him was whether Major
Yelverton had consented to marry her or not.
He was willing to withdraw the evidence in the
29th part of the condescendence, and also the evi-
dence of the Countess of Plinnsay ; but he would
still maintain that the pursuer un the father's side
was a lady of ancient family. The second objection
to the proof made by Mr. Fraser was to the evi-
dence of Mr. Tippets, on the ground of Lis having
acted in the agency for Mrs. Forbes Yelverton. A
number of other objections were referred to by Mr.
Fraser and withdrawn.

Mr. Miller repudiated the statement made by Mr.
Fraser that the evidence got up by the defender
was got up for the purpose of throwing dirt upon
the pursuer. He held that, when the pursuer put
certain things in issue she must abide by these,
and if the pursuer, through the evidence of
the Countess of Prinnsay, chose to make herself a
great lady in the record, and thereby put her cha-
racter in issue, was it to be said that the defender
must not inquire whether the statements of the
pursuer's witnesses were true ? He granted, if
there had been no such witnesses brought forward
as the pursuer choose to bring it would not have
been competent for the defender to have entered
upon these inquiries. They were not inquiring
whether certain facts were true, but they were
about to inquire if the statements which the
pursuer makes in reference to the footing on
which the pursuer and defender were at a
particular time were or were not true. If the
matter was one of doubt, was it nothing that the
defender would be able to say—your representa-
tions are mist epresentations ; you are not the person
you pretend to be? The pursuer could not ask the
Court to give her the benefit of the doubt in that
case. In regard to the objections brought by Mr.
Fraser against the evidence of Mr. Tippets, he con-
tended that it came too late, as the witness was
sworn and the explanation began before the ob-
jection referred to was advanced. He thought
therefore that it could not be maintained. He de-
nied that Mr. Tippets had been an agent in this
case, and said that it was probable he gained his
knowledge of it by means of the public prints.
At this stage the case was adjourned till Monday,
at 10 o'clock.