THE YELVERTON CASE.

New Zealander, Volume XXI, Issue 2263, 1 November 1864, Page 6

THE YELVERTON CASE.

The reference to oath—which is a remnant of the old barbarism of wager of battle, - or trying a case by making a party walk over red hot iron—is a procedure peculiar to Scotland. It does not exist in any other country of Europe. According to -this -absurd-part of the Scotch law—after a case has been fully exhausted. after every species of evidence has been adduced by both suitors, and after the judges or the jury have finally decided—the losing party, whether plaintiff, or defendant, has a last chance—he can force the party who has gained to swear that his cause is a just cause, and that he has not gained it by false evidence. As a matter of course the party who lias gained never hesitates for a moment to swear in bis own lavor. So completely is this understood, tb,at..the losing -suitor hardly ever resorts to this step. When this is done, it is always from pique or revenge. The reference to oath is not confined to questions of disputed marriage. It is common to every species of case. It is only the successful litigant w ho is put upon his oath. The loser is not allowed to urge one word in his own favor. In short, the reference to oath is simply a last appeal to the conscience of the gainer, which must he taken as conclusive. Ko cross-ex-amination is allowed, or attempt to lead the party into contradictions. The question, must be put in the simplest form ; and unless the counsel of the losing party can get the parly on oath to admit in die plainest terms, that the cause he has gained was an unjust one, or that it wa? supported by false evidence, the court will confirm the b gal judgement. The court

has no discretion in the matter. It mint take the matter given in the common sense. So it is impossible for the party on oath to be beguiled into losing his case. This can only be done of his own free will Such is the nature of the Scottish procedure of the “ reference to oath.” Mrs. Yelverton has intimated her intention of resorting to it. But we are afraid she has not the shadow of a chance of succeeding. She is certainly entitled by the Scotch law to put Major Yelverton on oath to answer the following questions, which her counsel might put to him :—“ Did you ever in Scotland declare to Miss Longwortb that you were her husband ; Did you ever at any time promise to marry Miss Lougworth. and did cohabitation follow in consequence of ih-t promise ?” To these two questions, is a matter of course, Major Yelverton would answer “ No.” He lias already upon oath negatived them at the trial in Dublin. No other questions could be put to him, and the whole case would be concluded in half an hour. The only, result of this reference to oath, upon which Mrs. Yelverton seems to found her hopes of a reversal of the judgment of the House of Lords would be an additional triumph to Major Yelverton, and another mortification to herself.— Observer,

Major Yelverton’s uncle has written a letter to the Star, expressing his sympathy with his nephew’s wife, the Hon. Mrs. Theresa Yelverton, as he describes her. Mrs. Yelverton’s letter, he says, is a “ beautiful and noble appeal.” He attended the whole of the trial in Ireland, and has no hesitation in affirming that on that occasion the jury, the bench, and the bar, and -all bystanders, believed Mrs. Yelverton’s evidence. He thinks also that there can be little doubt that if the three law lords who decided against her in the late appeal had been present they would have done the same. What puzzles the writer is, how Major Yelverton could have made so “ sad a mistake” as he did in “deserting such a woman.”