The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-12-26

on Monday, we have the following interesting
particulars of events which were noticed by
telegraph
d BARONK7 OHARGFD WITH BIGAHY.
Alleged Marriage OF Sir CuIIIpg Eerd.
ley In New YOrk-A Subsequent Mar
riRgO Charged Against Him,
BTom.ue London star, Dec. la.
Sir Eardley Gideon Culling Eardley, baronet,
was brought up at the Bow Street Police Court
yesterday, in custody Of BHck, one of the war
rant officers of the Court, upon warrant
charging him with having, ON the 18th Of Sep
tember, 1867, married a lady named Elizabeth
Allen, his former wife, Emily Florence, being
MIR. GifTard and Mr.. Grain, instructed by
Messrs. Humphrey and Morgan appeared for
the prosecutions; and Mr.. Montagu Williams
instructed by Mr.. Mant, for the defense.
MIR. Gltfard stated that the prosecution in this
case was instituted by the father of the real
Lady Ea1dley, in order TO yindcate the honor
OF his daughter, to whom the prisoner had been
legally married in New York in 1852 The
second marriage had been performed publicly
an London, and it certainly involved an inn
putaton that he had not been legally married
in the first instance. II the daughter of his
client was the real Lady Eardley, the lady who
now bore that title could have no just claim.
MIR. hontagu Williams inquired If his learned
friend was prepared with proof as to the
was legal.
Mr.. Gihard-T can relieve my friends anxiety.
am prepared with such evidence.
Mr.. Flowers i should think you have not re-
heyed his anxiety. a laugh.(
Mr. MCGEE, No. Manchester street, Hyde
Park, stated that he was residing in New York
In 1859. His daughter Emily Florence, was
residing with him at that time. At that time
ne knew the defendant, who was engaged to his
daughter. On the 18th of December witness was
present when they were married, in the usual
way, by person purporting TO be a clergyman
in Holy Orders at Calvary Church, in the do
cese OF New York. They lived together as man
and wife for some months after-in tact, as long
as witness remained in New York; and he be-
heved afterwards. Saw the parties sign the
register in a room attached to the church.
Cross-eXamned-He was then Mr.. Eardley;
witness first knew him in November, some three
or four weeks before the marriage; had been
previously aware of the engagement; there
were great number OF persons present, among
Others Mr. Cyrus Field and gentleman now in
court; the register is not signed by Witnesses;
? that IS not usual; there was no ceremony at the
consulate.
TO Mr.. Gifard-Witness' daughter is still
alive.
MT. Charles Mosely, of No. SO st. Georges
street, gentleman, deposcd-That he was pre-
sent at the marriage, and also in the vestry or
room adjoining the church; he was not sure
whether it was called "yestry;" ne was not
sure that he saw the registry signed, but he
understood they were doing so.
Mr.. Richard Henry Bannlster the Registrar OF
st. Georee's, Hanover Square, proved the pri-
Elizabeth Allen.
MIR. Robert de Tracy Gould, of Watthamstow,
deposed that he is barrister of the American
bar, and has practised Tor many years at New
York. If the marriage was performed as stated,
it was legal and valid marriage. 1t was not
necessary that it should be entered in the regis
try. That was sometimes done, but 1t was
rather an exception.
Cross sexamined-Witness had no authorized
copy of the law here. In the State of New
York the facilities for marriage were greater
than in any other State of the Union; no proof
of domicile was necessary, nor any marriage at
the consulate; no witnesses are required.
MIR. Montagu Williams-Then any young
. couple have only to walk into the first church
they come to and get married.
Mr.. Gould-They may walk into o church or
into private house, and if they liked they could
do 1t In the open air.
Mr.. Cifard-So they might in England until
the statute Of George III.
MIR. Stretton, of No. 3 GraV's Inn Square,
solicitor, produced a deed OF separation be;
tween the prisoner and Lady Eardley, executed
by them and by her father Mr.. McGee) on the
I'd October, 1863 in which she is described as
''his wife,
the court, proved the apprehension OF the
prisoner last night, at No. Grosvenor villas
Junction road, Upper Holloway, upon the war
Mr. Montagu Williams, observed that Mr.
Gifard had not proved the law at New York II
the proper manner, which was by producing
an authenticated copy of the law of New York
He referred to Roscoe's Digest" page 39A
which recites Clegg VS.. Levy, Camp, l66.
Mr.. Gihard said that had since been overruied
Mr.. MOntagu Williams should like to see tn
cases overruling it,
Mr.. Giffard said they would be produced at tn
time.
MT. Montagu Williams said they ought to b
produced here.
Mr.. Gitfard declined to give the reference.
Mr. N. Williams said the defendant wished t
state that he was perfectly under the impression
that the first marriage was illegal, and that
therefore, he was at liberty to marry again
Having been so advised, though not by him (MI
NJ. Williams), he (deteudanD fully believed tina
he had good defense. He hoped the magii
trate would take bail.
Mr.. Gfard said he understood that the defer
dant was outlaw.
Mr.. X. Williams-That is denied.
Mr.. Flowers declined to take bail. Appl,eatio
might be made to judge IN chambers.