The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1865-05-06

A CURIOUS PHAsE OF THE YELyERTOS MArrG4GE
CasE-The case Of the Ielverton marriage di not.
Of course, excite as much interest here as j. di with
the British public, for with them the persons were
known, and their positions in society gave the qucs-
tons involved in the case additional interest and i'm
portance. But ii was too celebrated a case 10 pass
entirely without notice among US. and We are sure
that our readers will be interested in the new and
peculiar phase which it has taken.
1t will be recollected that the case went up ~ APP
peal from the Courts OF Scotland, where the lady
had obtained a decree pronouucing her the wife of
Major Yelyerton, to the House of Lords, by which
the decree was reversed. She did not, however,
abandon the contest, even after this decision Of the
Court Of last resort against her. Her hrs, step MAS
q motion analogous, IS We understand II. In cur mo
tons for a new trial on account Of newly-dlscoSefed
evidence. Defeated in this also. she resorted to an
old process. known to the Scotch law, by which, on
the application Of a party, the Court may refer the
whole controversy to the oath Of his adversary. 1t
would see that if Major Yelverton had justice on
his side, if he did not marry the lady. as she alleged
that he did. he ought to have rejoced AZ so easy II
mode Of determining q long and embittered contro-
versy. But, on the contrary, we find by the reports
OF the case in the late English papers, that when the
motion was made his counsel opposed it most sirenu-
ously. And they opposed il on the ground that, as
Major Yelverton had Individually married another
lady since the alleged marriage with the lady, who
is called in the Scotch law the pursuer-and very
appropriately-o which last marriage two children
had been born, we have no doubt Major Yelyerton
would say the Court ought not. III ITS discretion, TO
refer the matter to the oath Of the defender. because
the rights OF these third parties had inter'eneu, anu
besides, the effect of his deposing In the affirmative
would be to prove him guilty of %bigamy.
The answer 10 these arguments was that I'D TINS
particular case there were no third parties. anu mat
the fact of the bigamy would not depend upon this
first marriage. If it were proved TO have been a mar
riage, but OF the second one. To this 1t was re-
Joined that you might say that, but you could NOT
get rid of the fact that, if Major Yelverton should
depose to the first marriage. he would by that very
act establish that the second marriage was no mar
riage, that the children of it were ~illegimate. and
that he had been guilty of bigamy. And the So
licitor-General urged very strenuously that, though
q man might choose which of two women should be
his lawful wife, yet when there were two women,
each claiming to be such, it could not be left to him
to say which one of them it was. Aud here the ar
gument was interrupted by an adjournment.
If MsjOr Yelverton was conscious that the truth
was not on his side, We can understand why he
should make such sharp opposition to the proposed
reference to his own oath. For he must be a hard
ened scJundrel who would not, If he could, avoid
being put in a position where his only escape from
defeat was by perjury. If the arguments were really
offered in the interest Of his acknowledged wife, that
wife would not seem to have much real confidence IN
Major Yelverton's veracity. If she could not trust
him, with the perils Of n prosecution for bigamy for
himself, the decided illegitimacy of his children. and
the published disgrace of herself before him. TO cave
himself and them all together, what confidence could
she feel in the righteousness of her cause?
1t will be very curious if the motion should be
granted, and the matter be left TO the oath OF a man.
who, in every aspect of the case, has shown himself
so devoid of principle. 1t will be most extraordinary
if such n man should give testimony which will go
against himself-.New York Tunes.