Star.
London, England, 1829-07-29 00:00:00

went to Gloucester, from that to Malvern, and then to
Leeds, where the defendant's regiment (the sth Dragoon
Guards) lay, and where she passed in the name of Mrs.
Bevell. Mr. Snow having heara many stories to the
disadvantage of Mrs. Doyley, felt that for the honour of
the plaintiff, as well as in justice to Mrs. Doyley herself,
it would be right to institute an inquiry into the truth of
these stories : he did so, and after proceeding from Lon-
don to Gloucester and Malvern, he went to Leeds, and he
there found Mrs. Doyley under the name of Bevell,
and far advanced in a state of pregnancy. Under these
circumstances it became necessary to proceed with this
action, and to institute at the same time another in the
Ecclesiastical Court, in order that a divorce might be
obtained. This was the case upon which the Jury had to
decide.

Mr. James Atkinson was called, and• examined by Mr.
Cockburn— He deposed that he was present at Mr.
Doyley's marriage in Calcutta. He was about 24 years
of age, and Mrs. Doyley 18. She was the daughter of
a gentleman named Thompson. Witness visited the
Doyley family constantly. Lady Doyley, the plaintiff's
sister-in-law, was related to the Marquis of Hastings's
Lady. Witness is a married man. The plaintiff and
his wife lived very happily together. The plaintiff was
particularly fond of his wife. They had three children—
two boys and one girl. In 1825 Mrs. Doyley left India
for England in consequence of the extreme illness of the
lyoungest child. She took with her the other two children,
who were of that age when children usually went to Eng-
land from India. It was the constant practice for ladies
to accompany their children to England; it would have
been the utter ruin of Mr. Doyley's expectations if he
accompanied Mrs. Doyley to England ; knew from Mrs.
Doyley that her allowance was 1,0001. a year ; that sum
being subsequently found insufficient, the allowance was
increased. Sir Charles Doyley, who had been married
now 14 years, was without any children ; the plaintiff
was consequently heir presumptive to his brother's title.
Mr. Alexander Melville examined by Mr. Sergeant
ISpankie—Knew the Doyley family intimately ; the plain-
tiff was assistant to his brother at Bahr, where Sir Charles
was opium agent; the plaintiff was immediately under
him ; witness never had an opportunity of judging of the
manner in which the plaintiffand his wife lived, but upon
one occasion, when he lived in the plaintiff's house for
three days, from what he then saw, he considered them
to live in the most perfect state of happiness.
The Rev. S. Snow deposed that he was related to the
plaintiff by marriage ; his wife was plaintiff's sister.—
Mrs. Doyley was introduced to him by a letter from the
plaintiff. She was two months in England before she
visited him : she went to Mr. Vansittart, (who was her
half-brother,) in Yorkshire, in the first instance : she then
visited witness ; her children remained with her a good
part of the time. In the spring of 1827 she went to re-
side in London ; it was intended that she should return
to India in the latter part of 1827. In the August of
that year she positively refused to go back to India ; she
was then residing in Bentinck-street. Knew Mrs. Brown,
the defendant's mother ; she had been married three
times ; her first husband was uncle to the plaintiff. Heard
that Mrs. Doyley had left London for Gloucester ; pro-
ceeded in quest of her in March, 1828 ; came first to
London ; proceeded onwards to Walworth, where he saw
the children left in the care of Mrs. Husband, Mrs.
Doyley's servant. In consequence of what was commu-
nicated to him by Mrs. Husband, he proceeded to Leeds,
accompanied by that female ; he there found Mrs. Doyley
in lodgings ; did not know what name she went by ; she
was large with child—indeed, very near her confinement.
On his return home, a person, whom he understood to be
the defendant, overtook him at Axminster, and stated to
him his wish that the matter between him and Mrs.
Doyley should be hushed up, saying, that after Mrs.
Doyley's accouchement she would be enabled to go to
India, and that her husband need know nothing of the
matter. Mrs. Doyley was allowed 1,0001. a year by her
husband.

-Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Taddy—Did not
think that Mrs. Doyley could think herself in a forlorn
situation in England. She was not left at the inn, at
Liverpool, without any one to protect her. The moment
he heard of her arrival, he wrote to say not only that his
house was open to her, but that he would come to Liver-
pool to escort her to his home, if necessary, but that duty
was undertaken by her brother, Mr. Vansittart. Did not
recommend her to live at a watering-place. She lived
some months at his house. She then went to London;
her doing so was contrary to our wishes ; this was in the
Spring of 1826; her hther was then living with Lord
Rivers ; upon that occasion she took lodgings in Duke-
street ; she was six weeks alone in lodgings in London ;
her children were left with witness ; never could have
heard her express her disappointment that she was not
countenanced by Mr. Doyley 's relatives, because she was
paid the greatest attention by them ; did not know of his
own knowledge that she mixed in parties in London in
1826; she was fond of the society of London.
Ellen Husband deposed, that she lived with Mrs.
Doyley, as her maid and housekeeper; she engaged with
her in January, 1826 ; was recommended to her by Lady
Turner, Mr. Vansittart's wife. Lived in London with
Mrs. Doyley, first in Duke-street, and afterwards in
Bentinck-street. In the spring of 1827, Mr. Bevel was
introduced to her mistress by his mother; never knew
him to call on her before then ; he visited her frequently
'afterwards. Mrs. Doyley used to speak of her husband
in a very affectionate manner ; the first time she heard
her speak of him was at Kirk Latham, where, in alluding
to the conduct of some gentlemen that were there, she
wished that she (witness) had seen her husband—then,
indeed, would she see a gentleman. This was before she
was acquainted with the defendant; she afterwards spoke
in very affectionate terms of the plaintiff; never heard
her speak of the plaintiff after she became acquainted
with the defendant. Her mistress left her in Gloucester
with the children, while she went to Leeds. Saw h?
Doyley subsequently at Leeds ; she was then in the , fa-
mily way.
Mary Key deposed that she resided at Leeds in the
year 1828. Knew Mrs. Doyley ; she lay-in of a boy in
witness's house: 'she passed. as Mrs. Bevell, and Lieut.
Bevell slept there constantly.
This closed the evidence in support of the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant Teddy addressed the jury for the de-
fence.—He contended that there was no proof offered
for the consideration of the jury, to show that the plaintiff
and his lady hid lived upon the affectionate footing men-
tioned by his learned friend, who, in fact, embarked his
own knowledge of India and the plaintiff's family, to
make up for the want of other. evidence. What were the
facts connected with this case ? A young woman at the
age of 14 goes out to India to get married, and at a very
early age arrives at the summit of her expectations. He
found no objection with the policy of such a proceeding •
but marriages contracted under such circumstances were
without any of those endearing • ties that linked. man
and wife together in England. There was no• union
of the heart to consecrate the holy rite—no long,
cherished affection to strengthen the bond of Won.
rTh Learned Sergeant, after taking a very compre-
hensive view of the case, called the attention of

M:ll2r-