Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SACKVILLE PEERACE CLAIM.

THE MARRIAGE IN SPAIN. RETIREMENT OF PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. [Pbess Association — Coptbight.] (Received Feb 4, 10.15 p:m.) London, Feb 4. During the reading of documents in the Sackville peerage case. Mr Justice Bigham remarked that Lord Sackville had repeatedly held petitioner out as his legitimate son. Mr Justice Bigham said he was satisfied as to Pepita's marriage with the daucer Oliva. In the. course of further discussion it was shown that the late Lord Sackville left a sworn declaration that he nevar married Pepita, adding that if she passed as his wife it was for the sake of her reputation; and also that the adopted children, including pcl'tioner, were not legitimate. It transpired that respondent married petitioner's sister. Petitioner wrote :o her in 1890, "Father could not have, done more for us. We are his illegitimate children." When in 1891 he had a daughter petitioner, in a letter to his father, regretted that the, child was not a boy to inherit the estates. A dramatic incident occurred yesterday, when petitioner handed oir Edward Clarke a letter requesting him to ask for an adjournment for the production of. certain documents collatea in Spain,- addins "Should Mr JustiDß Bighorn Tofuso the wish, you will retire from the caso. I do not care to go on further with such an unfair trial." . Sir Edward Clarke, considering his client was not guided by his advice, withdrew with his junior. Petitioner s solicitor likewise left the Court. Mr Justice Bigham will decided ioday whether the documents are essential.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TC19100205.2.23

Bibliographic details

Colonist, Volume LII, Issue 12765, 5 February 1910, Page 3

Word Count
255

SACKVILLE PEERACE CLAIM. Colonist, Volume LII, Issue 12765, 5 February 1910, Page 3

SACKVILLE PEERACE CLAIM. Colonist, Volume LII, Issue 12765, 5 February 1910, Page 3