STRANGE CASE. — SELF-ACCUSATION OF BIGAMY BY LORD HUNTINGTOWER.

Colonist, Volume VIII, Issue 793, 2 June 1865, Page 4

STRANGE CASE. — SELF-ACCUSATION OF BIGAMY BY LORD HUNTINGTOWER.

{From Hie•'Scotsman, March 18th.)

At the Maidstone Assizes on Tuesday,- before the Lord Chief-Baron and a common jury, Elizabeth Acford brought an action against the Hon. William Eelix Lionel Tollemache, commonly known as Lord Huntingtower, to recover £15, one quarter's annuity, granted to her by the defendant in consideration of past cohabitation. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was his wife, and that she consequently had no ground of action against him. He also pleaded that she had broken the condition upon which the annuity was granted to her by molesting and annoying him. The Hon. Gk Denraan, Q.C., and Mr. Taylor were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. C. Pollock were for the defendant. Upon the form of the pleadings, it devolved upon the counsel for the defendant to commence and establish the pleas he had put upon the record. Mr. Chambers, Q.C., for defendant, first addressed the jury, and he said that the case he had to lay before them was one of a very peculiar and singular character. The defendant, Lord Huntingtower, whose name was probably known to most of them, had, when a very young man, became acquainted with the plaintiff, Miss Elizabeth Acford, and there was no doubt that they cohabited together for a great many years as man and wife, and that this sort of intimacy continued down to the year 1848, and that this time there were three children, the result of the cohabitation. When the separation took place, the defendant executed the deed upon which the present action was brought, and by that instrument he consented to pay the lady £60 per annum, by four quarterly payments, and she was to support and educate the children. One of the conditions of the deed, however, was that the plaintiff should not in any way molest or annoy the defendant or his family; and if she did so, then the deed was to become void. Por some time the plaintiff appeared to have kept the conditions of the bond; and upon the children, two of whom were girls, growing up, Lord Huntingtower, with the consent of the plaintiff, removed them to a place where they were to be educated, and he provided for them ; but after some time be sent these children back and required the plaintiff io support them, as she was bound to do by the conditions of the bond. The plaintiff, however, objected to do so. After the separation between the parties, Lord Hnntingtower married another lady, by whom he had three children; and it was obvious, therefore, that he would desire that the agreement he had made with the plaintiff should be carried out.

The Chief Baron here interposed and asked the learned counsel what was meant by the plea that the plaintiff was the wife of the defendant.

Mr. Chambers said the case was a very peculiar one, and he would explain presently how it came that such a plea was placed on record. He went on to say that the plaintiff had not kept the conditions imposed by the deed, of not molesting the defendant, but she bad done so in a variety of ways, and particularly by going about and declaring that she was Lady Huntingtower. This was, of course, very annoying to Lord Huntingtower, having regard to his connection with another lady; and it appeared to his legal advisers that the only way to bring the matter to an issue was by putting this plea upon the record as an answer to the present action, find the plaintiff herself had been subpeened with a view to see what she would venture to say upon her oath upon the subject, and whether she would dare to say that she was Lord Huntingtower's wife, li: was true that a great many years ago the parties went to Scotland and lived there together, and a question arose upon a former trial whether a legal marriage had taken place or not, but it was made out that there was not.

The Lord Chief Baron said he must confess that it appeared to him that the plea was a novel one. Suppose the plaintiff by her replication had said that she was the defendant's wife, and that the plea was true, and she consequently abandoned the action ? (Laughter.)

Mr. Chambers said he was not prepared to give any assurance as to what would be the effect of such a thing. At present, all he proposed to do was to call the witness to whom he had referred, and hear what evidence she had to give upon the subject. . Miss Elizabeth Acford, the plaintiff, a middle-aged lady, was then examined by Mr. Chambers. In answer to the questions put to her by the learned counsel, she said—l am the plaintiff in this action. For a great many years I lived with the defendant, Lord Huntingtower, and I remember being with him in Scotland in 1844. We did not go to Scotland together, but I joined the defendant there, and it was the understanding between us that we were to become man and wife. At that time he was known as Lord Huntingtower, but we went by the names of Mr. and Mrs. Tollemache, which is his family name. We passed as man and wife, and I had afterwards five children by the defendant. Pour of those children are now alive.

The Chief Baron expressed his opinion that, upon this evidence, the plea of the defendant—that the plaintiff was his wife— had been established according to the law of Scotland.

Mr. Denman, to the witness: "Were you the defendant's wife ?

Witness: I really don't know. (Laughter.) The Chief Baron : It is a question of law. If two people live together as man and wife in Scotland, and represent, themselves to be such, and they have children, that is quite sufficient, according to the Scotch law, to establish a marriage.

The learned Judge then asked the plaintiff whether, at the time she considered herself the wife of the defendant ?

She replied that she certainly did. The Chief Baron then again expressed his opinion that the defendant's plea, that the plaintiff was his wife, had been established; and he suggested that it would be better for the parties to come to some arrangement. Mr. Chambers said that the circumstances connected with the inquiry were so unpleasant and peculiar that he hardly knew what course to advise, and perhaps it would be better to take the opinion of the jury upon the question. The Chief Baron observed that it might

lead to something extremely inconvenient if the jury, should return a verdict expressing their opinion-that''the plaintiff was tne wife of the defendant. (A laugh.);

Mr. Denman said he believed if the truth was known Lord Huntingtower must be very glad to find that the plaintiff was his real wife, in order that he might get rid of some one else. (Renewed laughter.) The Lord Chief Baron: It would be rather an inconvenient thing for a nobleman to be charged with bigamy. Mr. Denman then said that if, as the case stood at present, his Lordship was prepared to rule that there was evidence of coverture, he should not keep up the matter any further.

The Lord Chief Baron said he apprehended that, by the law of Scotland, if two people lived together as man and wife, and had children, it was a legal marriage. Both these facts had been distinctly proved in the present case, and it appeared to him, therefore, that the defendant's plea had been established.

Mr. Denman submitted that it was necessary, in accordance with the decision in a late case, that both parties should go to Scotland with the intention of marrying. The Chief Baron said, if that were so, one party might obtain his object by fraud. Mr. Denman said this was one of the difficulties connected with the Scotch law of marriage.

The plaintiff was then further examined, and she said she remembered the trial that took place a good many years ago, between herself and Lord Huntingtower, when the question of the legality of the marriage was discussed. The deed that was the subject of the present action was executed by Lord Huntingtower after that action, and she saw him sign him. She had five children altogether by the defendant. The last was born in 1863. Two of her daughters were removed from her charge by the defendant. He was a Roman Catholic, and he wished to take them abroad to have them educated. Since 1863, the annuity had never been paid without her bringing an action against the defendant, and upon every occasion the molestation plea was put on the record. Mr. Chambers: You have stated, Miss Acford, that your last child was born in 1863. Surely that is a mistake ? Witness: No; it is not. It is quite correct.

Mr. Chambers: But you don't mean to say that Lord Huntingtower is the father of it ? (Laughter.)

Witness: I certainly do. He is the father, (Renewed laughter.)

Mr. Chambers: Do you mean to say that you have ever seen the defendant since 1854?

"Witness : Certainly I do: He visited me on several occasions.

Mr. Chambers: "Where? ' "Witness : At the place where I reside, a' Islington.

The Chief Baron : Is it of any use to go into all this ?

Mr. Chambers: My Lord, lam anxious to ascertain whether there is any truth in the extraordinary statement that has been made by the witness. He then addressed the plaintiff, and said—"You don't mean to say that the child born in 1863 was Lord Huntingtower's child ?

"Witness: I repeat that Lord Hunting, tower, and no one else, was the father o: that child

Mr. Chambers: Have you ever held your, self out to the world as Lady Hunting , o JO tower r

"Witness : I have not, but Lord Hunting tower has held me out as such.

Mr. Chambers: "What name are you generally known by ? "Witness: lam known as Mrs. Tollemache, and as Miss Acford.

Mr. Chambers : "Well, which are you ? Witness: I don't know. (Laughter.) I may have said that I was married to Lord Huntingtower.

Mr. Denman was then about to sum up the case for the plaintiff, when The Lord Chief Baron interposed, and said it appeared to him that the learned counsel could not alter the facts, and in his opinion there was prima facie evidence to establish the plea that the plaintiff was the wife of the defendant. The verdict would, therefore, be for the defendant upon that plea, and for the plaintiff upon the other, alleging that she had forfeited the condition of the bond by molesting the defendant, to support which not a tittle of evidence had been adduced. He should, however, reserve for further consideration the question whether he was correct in his view of the law upon the subject of the plea of marriage. A verdict to that effect was accordingly recorded.