MARRIAGE CASE.

Southland Times, Volume I, Issue 35, 10 March 1863, Page 3

MARRIAGE CASE.

(From the Scotsman.) A large crowd of persons assembled nn the morning of the 10th December, in Parliament Square," Edinburgh, eagerly desirous of gaining admission to the Court of Session, in which il had heen announced that the learned judges would deliver their decision on the appeal against the judgment of Lord Ardmillan in the Yelverton marriage case. That judgment, it will be recollected was again-: t the validity of the Scotch marriage of the plaintiff with Mnjo- Yelverton. The deepest Interest was manifested in the result of the appeal. The judgments were of considerable length, nnd occupied about seven hours in the delivery. The demand upou our space will not permit un to give more than the grounds upon which tho decisions were arrived nt. Lord Currichill said that no on" could read the first part of the correspondence without characterising if as mi honorable courtship between a gentlemen and lady of congenial dispositions and well-cultivated minds. He could find no evidence fo support the defender's view that the pur.iuer wished to substitute corcubina^c for marriage. All hough he did not pretend to understand the flights of imagination which abounded in the correspondence, he could not find .nylhing which indicated immodesty or impurity in it, and therefore he could not adopt the defender's interpretation. His lordship was of opinion that marriage hy tho interchange of consent de present i was established, and that were it not so, thero waa evidence to establish the marriage 'on the ground of promise subsequenlc C °LordDea9 expressed, in still longer terms, tho Tiew taken by Lord Curriehill, holding that the pursuer had established her marriage with the defender both on the ground of the marriage of consent do present! find of promine subsc/ncntc copula. In delivering his opinion, which occupied iibout threo hours, his lordship wbh occosionally interrupted hy applause, which was checked ly tho court.

The Lord President delivered an opinion opposed to the other judges. Ho found no direct evidence to support the allegations of the pursuer that thero was interchange by consent in Edinburgh, wbich constituted marriage : on the contrary, he thought it was contradicted by the evidence in the letters which passed between the pursuer and tho defender after tbeir first residence in Edinburgh, during which the interchange of consent was alleged to have taken place. The pursuer expressed herself in a manner inconsistent with the supposition of their being at that time husband and wife. He felt, unable to satisfy his mind that there was evidence that in Scotland, at the time of their first visit, there was that interchange of consent between the parties which the pursuer had alleged. On the Other question ns to whether there bad not been marriage constitutioncd by promise s'libseqiienie copula, his lordship said he was notsatisfied that the letters construed an actual promise of marriage. They were rather vague — they were not so definite and precise as he should like to see made the basis of a declaration of lasv. The " w Could not afTotd to bo moiv relaxed than it was, but supposing that there was something in the letters which could be construed as a promise, there was no sexual intercourse between the parties in Scotland until after the Irish -marriage, tho validity of which was still maintained by the pursuer, and he hold tbat the subsequent cohabitation in Scotland, must be referred, not to the previous promise, if there was a promise, but to the previous ceremony in Ireland. They must not conjecture a marriage: they must have positive evidence that such a thing had taken place, and he considered that the evidence upon these grounds was not suflicient. Lord Ardmillan, the remaining judge, not having heard the pleadings in the caso at this stage, gave no opinion. The court accordingly gave judgment in favor of Mrs Yelverton. The strong feeling which has been exhibited in favor of Mrs Yelverton throughout theso proceedings was illustrated immediately after the decision had been pronounced by a burst of cheering, which the efforts of the ofiicials of fhe court could not for some time silence. The cheering inside, moreover, was taken up with corresponding fervor by the crowd in the vicinity ef the court. The only step which can now be taken to bring tliis remarkable case to a final conclusion is that of an appeal to the House of Lords.