Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-07-11
miscellaneous
Frem tho London Times, June o.
EXTRAORDINARY LAWSUIT IN THE
HOUSE OF LORDS.
is A NEW YORK JUDGEMENT UNIM-
P~EACHABLE2

strange, and a case in many respects so remark n
able, that we endeavor to condense the 1aets lhto
some manageable shape for the information OF q
our readers. 1t is true enough that the subject Is 7
not n new one-indeed, its history is one OF Its i,
most singular features but it has, perhaps, never !
yet found its way to the general knowledge OIL tue
public. 4
In the year l764, or thereabouts-so far must T
we ascend tho stream of events for the beginning g.,
Of the narrative-Mr VIM. Sheldon, only son OF
a Scotch landowner, left his native country, ir
America. Four years afterwards he returned on Il
n visit. but sailed again in 1869, and renamed De-
yond seas, engaged in mercantile pursuits, Tor tne
Yest of his life. While in America he was twice {
married-frst in 1885, OF which marriage there
was a female issue only, and again some few years
later, with the issue of a son. It's upon thls
second connection that so much has been found TO
turn. 1t appears that the union in question was
solemnized in the first instance, IN li9o, oy cvl
contract. a ceremony alleged to impart the valid
Sty Of marriage according to the laws OF New
York, where it was performed. Either, however,
to remove doubts, or to make assurances still more
certain, or to facilitate the succession OF his SON.
Mr.. Sheldon, six days before his death, which
bappened on the 18th of November, Tvs, was
married over again to the lady with whom he had
been eight years living, and this time according TO
the rites Of the Protestant Episcopal Church.
Most Of our readers will be aware, no doubt, mat
BY the law Of Scotland a marriage. between TWO
persons legitimates all the previous issue SO that
if this second ceremony had been performed IN
Scotland no uncertainty whatever could Afterwards
buNS USu w w.
Closely connected with the Sheddons in Scot
land was a family named Patrick, aud Mr.. VIII
liam Patrick was appointed guardian OF young
Sheddon on his fathers death. After the news oil
that event reached Scotland proceedings were
taken upon the assumption that the son porn IN
America was not entitled to succeed his iather IN
the nossession of the Scotch estate, ana the SUI
cassion onened in due form to DR.. Robert Patrick
rs next heir. This was in Ivy. In the year
following, William Patrick Ralston Sheldon, TIE
son aforesaid, arrived in Scotland from America,
and passed under the care and tutelage OF MI
William Patrick. In 1901 the guardianship OF the
how was transferred from William Patrick 20 Hugh
C%raufurd, and two years alter TINS hugn
Craufurd instituted an action against the Patrlcksl
for the recovery of the lands to the use OF MS
vounp ward, This action was defeated, ana an
appeal to the House Of Lords met with no better
success, an adverse judgement having been pro-
nounced by Lord Eldon himself in lSOS. Here,
then. is the case of Sheldon Us. Patrick" appa.
rentlv decided in the court of the last resort all
but half a century ago, and yet this, IN substance
is the very question still agitated between the
Identical parties which Lord Grey introduced to
their l~ordships last night. Not only. is ".li'an
Patr;ck Ralston Sheldon still sustaining in hii
proper person the character of petitioner, but Mr.
Patrick himself is living still, and still in possess
ion of the contested estate. A more marvellou
longevity Of procedure has seldom been seen, ant
the Intervening features Of the case are equal.
striking.
Mr.. w. p. R. Sheldon was duly sent to schoo
and college under the superintendent OF Mr.. w
Patrick, after which he entered the Royal Navy
remained in that service till the close OF the war
then went to India, and finally returned, in tn,
possession of considerable property, about 1000
Shortly afterwards he appears to have conceive'
a suspicion that he had been wron ely dealt with
in respect of his legitimacy and his rights Oh PAL
-imonial succession. and at length, in lS49, he re
opened by personal action in the Scotch court
those very proceedings which had been terminated
in the House of Lords some forty years before
To these proceedings the Patricks pleaded the pa
of the previous decisions, and this defence wa
sustained, though not altogether to the exclusion
of discussion on the merits of the case Itself
Again was The cause carried to the House o
Lords on a second appeal, and again, IN 1904 de
cided against the petitioner. In reality, accord
ing to the doctrine of English law, the origna
sentence of the courts could not have been upse
upon proof of such fraud or collision as wouli
vitiate the entire proceedings. Whether the decis
ion of lS03-lS0S had been a Just one or not, IN
ported little, so long as it had been given in
bona tide suit. To all intents and purposes
was. even if unjust, nevertheless final, unless
could be shown that the suit was a ~fundamenti
suit altogether. The plaintiff, in fact. did empic
this plea, but without sustaining it, and his ca
therefore was lost. Now, however, comes a mo
extraordinary feature in the case. The quest'
of legitimacy and alienage appears to have be
argued on the supposition that the claims OF t
petitioner were founded on the last maria
alone, and the controverted points turned miir
on the domicile of William Sheldon, the elder,
the time this last marriage was solemnlzed. IT
could be considered a Scotchman, his previo
issue was beyond doubt legitimated but was
q Scptchman alter twenty-eight years residen
10 America ? 1t was ruled otherwise; and as
account was taken Of the original civil marriaG
from which the petitioner sprang, the decision W
fatal. As early, however, as 1852, the petition
had commenced the construction of a claim bs
upon the validity of this prior contract, and
last, after the decision against him in 1854, he
paired to New York, and instituted proceedin
for tha establishment of HIS lppitimacvi in tho MIA
of his birth. And here, at length, after so mai
struggles, he was successful, for in an actic
brought in the Supreme Court of New York, 1T W
decided that the first" marriage of William She
don with the mother of the petitioner was a val
marriage, and the petitioner as the issue of su
marriage and lawful heir of his father, seeI
actually to have recovered a piece of land.
1t 10 impossible not to sympathize with strr
giles and fortunes like these. Into the trials
1903 and 1912 we have no desire to enter, thou
we think ourselves bound in justice to obse
that the judges before whom the case came
hearing expressed themselves very decide
against the allegations of fraud which had b.
advanced. Omitting, however, these consid
atoms, and passing over, as the petitioner him'
now appears to do, the claim to the estate, it d
appear a hardship that a man whose legitim
assuming, of course, that the New York jud
ment is unim peacahble-has been established in
actual place of his birth should be deprived of
status by such events as we have related. III
was neither an alien nor illegitimate, he was
titled to succeed 10 the patrlmony OF MS lamiiy
the death of bis father, nearly sixty years ago. ]
law of which, in this case. he would be the vict
in the loss Of his estate is so obviously benefC
that no exception can be taken to its occasion
operation for wrong. Better eVen that examp
of such hardship should occur nov and then til
that the settlements of years should be intermi
bly, open to disturbance. But the legitimacy
the petitioner is a question apart, and if this 20
has been really and completely decided by
New York trial, it undoubtedly seems hard tina
previous decision. arrived at, it is true, after ca
inl Investigation, but with imperfect knowledge
facts should be suffered to affect him with
remedy on a point where such strong and 3,
laudable feelings would naturally be entertain
The House of Lords decided in 1908, doubt