The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-08-16
The Yelverton Ca,o DeoIJed.

The House of Lords has given a final decision
IN the Helverton case, adverse to Miss Long
worth. The London Times says:-
THE long litigation in the everton case is
brought to close by the judgment of the
House of Lords, which dismissed Miss Long
Worths second appeal, and declared that the
Court OF Sessions was justified in not allowing
the matter to be reopened by a proceeding
which, even iflawful, was ineXpedient, and per-
haps unjust. The judgment will not have for
the general public the interest of that former
one in which all the circumstances of the case,
and even the private correspondence of the
parties, were scanned by the most acute legal
intellects OF the time, and in which the high
authority OF Lords Brougham and Westbury
was found opposed to the decision of majority
of the law lords.
ION the 2Sth of July, 1864, their lordships de-
lVered judgment, aud the difficulty of the case
may be understood from the difference of
opinion which was disclosed. The Lord Chan
cellor, Lord Westbury, and Lord Brougham,
whose written judgment, however, was not
received IN his absence, were for affirming the
Judgment of the court below. Lords Chelmsford,
Wensleydale, and KingsdoWn were of the con-
trary opinion, and considered that the Scottish
court had wrongfully decided in favor of Miss
LoneWorth. These being the majority, in con-
sequence OF the exclusion of Lord Brougham's
Judgment, the judgment was reversed, and the re-
the appellant,
The blow was a heavy one; but woman,
When her mind Is concentrated on one idea,
olten pursues 1t with surprising perseverance
ana fortltude. Miss Longworth's passion was
10 pc declared the legal wife of Major Yeverton,
ana thls object, which, after what had passed,
would seem to have been almost Valueless, she
would not forego as long as any expedient re-
NAMED TO be tried. She was advised that, ac-
cordmg to ancient Scottish usage, one of the
parues TO suit may refer the cause to the oath
oI Ine Other even though the party thus tender
ing the reference is unable to adduce proof of
the iacts alleged. The law on the subject may
De gathered sufficiently for a general compre-
henslon OF 1t from the Lord Chancellor's judg-
ment; we need only state here that there seems
TO De no doubt such a right of claiming a
reference TO oath exists, but that in the opinion
OF the House OF Lords as Just pronounced, the
reference ought only to be made when the
Court shall deem it conducive to the ends of
Justice.
- In the present case, the respondent, il he
answered atfirmatvely, would have admitted
hlmseli 10 have been guilty of bigamy; or, If he
hau refused TO answer, Mrs. Forbes would have
Deen conclusively deprived of all the rights
whlch she had acquired by her marriage with
the respondent The Lord Chancellor also held
mat IN the case of declaration of marriage the
competency OF a reference to oath had been
laken away by statute, 80 that accumulated
reasons existed for affirming the Judgment of
the court below. The other lords concurred In
tnese opinions, and the appeal was dismissed.
90 ends the long contest between Major Ye
Verton ana ms unfortunate companion. What
ever may have been her imprudences or her
errors, IL Is Impossible not to feel regret tor
woman OF education and of no small ability,
whose life has been so wrecked"