The Sun.
London, England, 1868-04-30 00:00:00

THE SPIRITUALIST CASE.

On the hearing of this case being resumed before Vice-
Chancellor Gifford, Mr. Matthews commented on the case
for the defendant. He said that the court had had the '
advantage of seeing Mrs. Lyon herself, and her mental
and moral qualities had been brought before them. He
thought Mrs. Lyon exhibited the greatest strength of mind;
throughout the long ordeal to which she was subjected
that strengith had never failed her. He showed that title
had a keen sense of the ridiculous, which was most opposed
to the idea of her being influenced by superstition ; that
she was a good woman of business, and that she had such
influence ever her husband in his life as to induce him to
transfer the whole of his property on mortgage to her.
The defendant's romantic book induced Mrs. Lyon to find
him out. The statement that she sought Home for the
purpose of being placed in communication with her hus-
band's spirit was a pure fabrication, as was shewn by
the fact that she was already acquainted with spiritual
mediums. He spoke of the glaring improbability of
the defendant having at her first interview with the

plaintiff, which lasted only a quarter of an hour,
exhausted all the resources of his art. When she
was casting about for corroborations, she introduced
for the first time the subject of the handkerchief, stating
that at the first interview it was tied into knots. In one
of the books of memoranda she states that an accordion
was on the table at the first interview, and that it played
a tune without being touched by anybody. Now, that cir-
cumstance was not introduced into any affidavit. He
contended that those memoranda were compiled between
the 27th of June, 1867—the time when the first affidavit
was sworn—and the 31st of March, 1868, when the third
affidakit was sworn ; but the plaintiff and her advisers
shrunk from introducing that additional circumstance
into the first interview of a quarter of an hour.
With regard to the statement of the plaintiff about her
visiori of the golden-haired boy, he said she had in her
crow-wramination admitted that it was all nonsense, and
treated it as a joke. He thought it was clear that she, an
ostentatious woman, who had nothing to recommend her,
and who was slighted by her relations, took that peculiar
means, by talking about her remarkable visions, of
givitg herself a position, and making herself the subject
of remark. Mrs. Lyon, with a keen sense of the grotevue-
ness of the raps, and so forth, was the last person to be
influenced by them. The lea rned counsel laid particular stre.ss
on the letter sent to Mr. Home, which ran as follows

" My dear Mr. Home, I have a desire to render you inde-
pendent of the world, and, having ample means for .the
purpose without abstracting from any needs or comfort
of my own, I have the greatest satisfaction in now pre-
senting you with, and as an entirel fre gift from me,
the sum of £24,000, and am, my dear sir, yours very
truly and respectfully, JANE LYON." Mr. Matthews
then referred to the transactions with her brokers
and bankers when she sold out her stock for the
benefit of the defendant, the learned counsel proceeding

to give some explanation of the circumstances which, he
said, had led her to make so extraordinary a disposition of
her property as she had clone, pointing out that she had
a fortune of £6,000 a year, living at a second-floor lodging
at 30s. a week, with no expenses of any kind ; that her
wealth was, therefore, useless to her, that her only asso-
ciates were Mrs. Sims, Mrs. Prior, and Mrs. Pepper, that
she was leading a dull life, and that she had always been
anxious to adopt a eon. When she met with Mr. Home
she found in him everything she could desire, and enter-
tained, as he alleged, from the first, the most natural and
unblameable affection. Many witnesses had spoken of
the plaintiff having expressed the greatest dislike of her
relatives, and in one of her letters she had called Mrs.
James Fellows "a devil out-and•.,ut," and this he thought
was sufficient to account for her having given her money
to the defendant. With regard to the gift of £6,000, she
had said to several witnesses that she was going to give
it to him by way of a little surprise as a birthday
present, and that, he contended, was not at all con-
sistent with the theory that she had given the money
simply in obedience to the commands of her husband's
spirit.—The case had not concluded when the enurt
adjourned.