The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-17 00:00:00

[The ease was proceding when we went to press.]

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
PYSON V. WESTROPE AND OTHERS.
This case came on as a question of costs, and whether they
' ought to be borne by Capt. Westrope, who had contested the
will of the testator, a wealthy farmer in the isle of Ely, and
the real question was whether the testator had been unduly
coerced to execute the will and two codicils while in a state
of mind totally unfit for such a proceeding. The will was
also contested by Mr. Culling, one of the executors and
legatees, and also by the heir-at-law, but on the trial, after
the case had occupied a considerable time, the Attorney-
General and Mr. O'Malley, who appeared for the separate
litigants, and finding from the evidence that the codicifs
and will could not be successfully resisted, they accordingly
withdrew from further opposition, and a decree in favour
of the validity of the will and codicils, with costs, was
granted ; and the question now at issue was, whether there
should be a joint order for the payment of the costs, or
whether they should be wholly paid by Mr. Westrope or
the heir-at-law.
rf Dr. Deane appeared for the heir-at-law, and contended
that the present was not a case in which the heir-at-law
should be called upon to pay the costs, and, on the other
hand, that, as Mr. Westrope commenced the litigation, he
ought to be ordered to pay the expenses of such a proceed-
ing..

Mr. O'Malley appeared for Mr. Westrope, and argued
that as his client had acted only in a bona fide manner, and
did not question the decision of the court, he should not be
called upon to pay the expenses of the suit.
Dr. Twiss was heard in support and reply on the rule ob-
tained by him to alter the decree as to payment of costs.
Judgment postponed.
MARCHMONT V. MARCHMONT.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott, on the part of Mrs. Marchmont,
applied to his lordship to pronounce a decree of judicial
separation, in accordance with the verdict of the jury.
His Lordship decreed accordingly.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—l have another question to sub-
mit to your lordship; it is whether the Court will grant
any other relief to Mrs. Marchmont.
The Judge Ordinary—Oh, no; the lady has got plenty
of money.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott--I was induced to ask the question,
as Mr. Marchmont continues to occupy the house which,
with its contents, belongs to Mrs. Marchmont. Costs ought
to be given against him so as to induce him to give-up pos-
session.
The Judge Ordinary—If he continues to occupy the
promises against the will of the oWner, ho can be ejected.
It was expected that the case of Jeffrey v. Jeffrey would
be- resumed this morning, but the Judge Ordinary was
occupied at the time of our going to press disposing of a
great number of applications fixed for to-day.
SATURDAY, JAN. 15.
JEFFREYS V. JEFFREYS.
This was a testamentary suit, but the solo question in
controversy was whether or not a marriage had been con-
tracted so long ago as 1811.
It appeared that at the beginning of the present century
there lived at a village called Ecclefechan, in Dumfries-
shire, two families named Jeffreys and Bell. Mr. Jeffreys
had a son George, and Mr. Bell a daughter, Clarinda. The
young people were schoolfellows together. Their intimacy
ripened into an attachment which it would be shown termi-
nated in marriage. Jeffreys, who was at first a journeyman
stockiAgmaker, had an ambition to become a doctor of medi-
cine ; and as the first step in his metamorphosis he
went to Dumfries, and took up his abode with a druggist.
Clarinda Bell also came to Dumfries, having been
apprenticed by her father to a pastrycook, named
Drinkwater. On the 24th of July, 1811, Jeffreys invited
his sweetheart, who was then in her 23d year, to meet him
at the Globe Tavern to be married. She accordingly went
to the Globe, at Dumfries, accompanied by Miss Drink.-
water, and there, in the presence of three or four witnesses,
the parties mutually acknowledged each other to be husband
and wife. A certificate was drawn up, signed by those
present, and given to the bride ; after which the new mar-
ried couple returned to Miss Drinkwater's,whore they passed
the night. The next morning they went to Mr. Bell's,
and told him that they were married. Mr. Bell was at
first displeased ; but having been shown the certificate,
he agreed to let the parties live with him. They coha-
bited there till 1816 ; and during that time Jeffreys went
on several whale-fishing expeditions, in the capacity of a
kind of surgeon. At this period he was wretchedly poor,
and his outfit was provided for him by his father-in-law.
Three children were the fruit of the union—a son, John,
who was born in May, 1812, and died at the ago of 11 years ;
another son, Robert, born in September, 1814 ; and a third,
James, born in July, 1815. In 1816 amedie,al practitioner,
named Bland, died at a neighbouring village called the
Flosh ; and Jeffreys, thinking that an opening was thus
made for him, started business in the surgical line. Shortly
afterwards he sent for his wife, and they cohabited for
some time at the Flosh. Jeffreys, however, got into pecu-
niary difficulties, which brought him into Annan Gaol. His
wife visited him while he was in prison; and when the
hour for shutting up arrived, the turnkey told her she must
go away; but her husband said she was his wife, and she
was allowed to remain with him all night. In the next
year, having obtained his discharge, he went again to Eccle-
fechan—then to Dumfries, and then on more whaling ex-
peditions. In 1820 he took out his diploma. Afterwards
he seemed, as the phrase was, to have "gone under" for a
considerable period. In fact he did not appear again till
the year 1331. He had had some quarrels with his wife on
account of the laxity of his principles at Flosh and some
other places, and the parties having agreed to separate,
Jeffreys went away from the neighbourhood. Mr. Bell
afterwards became embarrassed, and was obliged to part
with his farm. In 1831 he was living at Hull, and there
he met a Scotch drover, who told him he had seen his son-
in-law at a place called Keelby, in Lincolnshire, where he
was thriving in the exercise of his profession. Bell lost no
time in seeking an interview, in which he threatened Jef-
, freys with proceedings to compel him to receive his wife.

Jeffreys told him that such a step would be his ruin, as he
had stated himself to be a bachelor ; and so, after some
discussion, they came to terms, Jeffreys giving his father-
in-law £5O. On another occasion he gave him £lOO, and
had also made several presents to his sons, who paid him
visits from time to time. Mrs. Jeffreys went to see him
in 1839, but though they did not agree very well, and
Mrs. Jeffreys returned from Keelby on the same day, he
made her various small allowances during the remainder of
his life. Mr. Bell died in 1843, but his son-in-law sur-
vived till the 31st of October, 1857, when he expired rather
suddenly at Harrowgate, leaving property to the amount of
between £2,000 and £3,000. Before his death he had ex-
pressed his determination to make his sons his heirs, but he
made no will.

In support of Dr. Phillimore's statement on Saturday
Mrs. Jeffreys was examined at some length. She was cross-
examined by Mr. K. Macaulay, Q.C., and excited some
'amusement by .the air of determined hostility which she
opposed to the questioning of the learned counsel. Mr.
Malcolm Kerr, a member of the Scotch bar, proved that
such a proceeding as had been sworn to by the witnesses of
the signing of the certificate (which was produced) would
constitute a valid marriage according 'to the law of Scot-
land. Other evidence was likewise produced to show that
Mrs. Jeffreys was the wife of the deceased by habit and
repute.

Mr. Macaulay, on behalf of the next of kin, commented
on the strong improbability of circumstances which had been
sworn to as surrounding the alleged marriage. But for the
document which had been put forward as a certificate the
fact of the marriage would stand on very doubtful grounds ;
and as for the question of habit and repute, he should pro-
duce ample evidence to show that there had been no such
uniform and consistent repute as was required to impart the
character of marriage to a connexion between two parties
whose union had not been regularly solemnised. Coming
back to the alleged certificate, he was instructed, that it had
never been heard of till it was produced in the court. That
circumstance was not in favour of the parties who brought it
forward. He should be able to show that there had never
been in Dumfries any " Bailie Thomas Smith," which was
one of the signatures appended to the certificate. Thero
was, however, William Smith, who seemed to be the party
intended. There was also this singular fact. The alleged
wife stated that her first child was born about eight or nine
months after her marriage, which, if it had ever taken
place at all, must have been on the 24th of January, 1811.
The period at which a first child was born after its
mother's marriage was a matter about which it was almost
impossible for her to make any mistake ; but he had in his
hand the register of the son John's birth, which seemed
quite inconsistent with the witness's statement. It was as
follows :—" Births and Baptisms in 1813. John William
Jeffrey, acknowledged son of George Jeffrey and Clarinda
Bell, born 15, baptised Nov. 15." He was informed
that this was the manner in which it was usual in Scotland
to enter the births of illegitimate children whose paternity
was acknowledged. The deceased, it would also be shown,
had always repudiated anything like a marriage with Cla-
rinda Bell, and no attempt to establish one had been made
during his lifetime.

At this stage of the proceedings the court rose.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCYr

(Before Mr. Registrar Winslow, for Mr. Commissioner
Gouiburn.)
IN RE A. ROLFE.

This bankrupt was described as of Dorrington-street,
Clerkenwell, timber merchant, and to-day was appointed
for his last examination.

Tho balance-sheet, by Messrs. Hunt Brothers, extends
from Jan. to Nov., 1858, and shows debtor to creditors,
£3,559; to creditors holding security, £1,379; profits,
£1,255 ; surplus, Jan. 1858, £143. Creditor, by good debts,
£1,098 17 ; doubtful, £214 ; property surrendered, £1,703 ;
ditto, held by creditors, £1,227; trade expenses, £856;
house ditto, £62 3s. 11d.; cash balance, £167; losses, £948;
liabilities, £1,026.

The bankrupt passed his examination.
IN RE MONUMENT.

This bankrupt was described as of the Britannia Tavern,
City-road, on accounts by Messrs. Hart Brothers. Debtor
to creditors, £1,534; to creditors holding security, £1,047 ;
creditors, good debts, £l6 16s. ; property, £1,102; cash, £304.

IN RE DAVIDSON AND GORDON.

These bankrupts, having given notice of appeal against
the decision of Mr. Commissioner Goulburn on the question
of certificate, an order wa4 made that the bankrupts should
deposit £4O each to meet the costs.

MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before the Registrar.)
ELLIOTT V. WEBB.-NON-ATTENDANCE TO JUDGMENT

SUMMONSES.

Mr. Perry, from Mr. Buchanan's, of Basinghall-street,
appeared for the plaintiff, and pressed for a committal in
this judgment summons. The action had been brought
upon a tailor's bill, and plaintiff recovered a verdict. He
(defendant) had not complied with all the orders of the
Court.

A person who attended for defendant said he was so ill
that he was unable to attend ; but

Mr. Perry remarked that he could call a witness to prove
that defendant was at business on Thursday last.
Registrar—You see he has paid some of the costs. But
I am not satisfied with his non-attendance to-day. How-
ever, I will make a commitment for 20 days, to lie in the
office 14 days, and if he complies with my further order it
will not be issued.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(TIIIS DAY.)

GUILDHALL.

ALLEGED DEFALCATIONS BY A LATE CLERK OF THE
SHERIFFS' COURT.—Joseph Hudson, late a clerk in the
City Sheriffs' Court, was brought, up before Alderman
Carroll in custody of R. Packman, City detective, charged
with being a defaulter in his accounts to the extent of
nearly £2OO.

The officer proved the apprehension of the prisoner in the
Lea-bridge-road on Saturday evening.
Mr. Beard, of Basinghall-street, attended for the prisoner,
who appeared much dejected.

A remand was applied for by the officer, and the prisoner
was removed.