THE YELVERTON MARRIAGE CASE.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVII, Issue 1772, 27 September 1862, Page 5

THE YELVERTON MARRIAGE CASE.

In the Court of SessioD, at Edinburgh, on the 3rd of July, Lord Ardinillan gave judgment in favour of Major Yelverton, deciding that there was no Scotch marriage. In the action of declarator by Mrs. (Longworth) Yelverton, he finds that the pursuer hps not proved that she is the wife of the defender, and he assoilises the defender. In the action of declaration of freedom, &c, hy Major Yelverton, he declares against the defender, and finds Major Yelverton entitled to costs. His lordship said :— -" The cobabitiou which the law requires must be such eobabitiou as husband and wife as creates a general belief of marriage. The consorting wiih the view to concubinage, under colour of professed marriage, is not the cohabitation which law requires. It must be open and avowed cohabition, as in the relation of husband and wife. The using a false name, and especially the use of a. maiden name, is most uufavourable to the plea

of cohahition. Besides, a divided repute, or a limited repute confined to a narrow sphere, while elsewhere an opposite repute exists, is not sufficient. In this case, apart from the mere culor, assumed to escape scandal and procure j admission to lodgings and hotels, there had been no habit aud repute at all. The cohabitation of the parties, such as it was, did not create a general belief in their marriage. There was no such general belief; neilherrelatives, nor friends, nßr neighbours seriously believed, as the result of open conjugal cohabitation, that the parties were husband and wife. The award of expenses to the successful party is in accordance with the general rule and pmcliea of the court. That judgment had been reached after much anxiety and not without sympathy for the sad fate of the pursurer ; but with a clear conviction that it was according to the truth of the case. For the conduct of the defeuder there can be no excuse. But he was not the seeker, the seducer, or the betrayer of the pursurer. The story of the puesuer — her charms, hertalent, her misfortune- — even the intense and persevering devotedness of the passion by which she was impelled — must excite interest, pity, and sympathy. But she was no mere girl— no simpleton — no stranger to the ways of the world — no victim to insiduous arts. She was not deceived. She fell with her own consent. Applying to the ascertained facts the rules of the Scottish law of marriage, the Lord Ordinary has found it impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than the pusurer has not proved that she was the lawful wife of Major Yclverton.

Against the above judgment , a reclaiming petition was on July 5, presented to the First Division of the Court, whose decision will be subject to appeal to the House of Lords.

[Judgment was given in the Court of Coniinan Pleas in Dublin on tbe 7th July on the exceptions to the charge of Chief Justice Monaghan on the the Yelverton trial. Mr. Justice Christian and Mr. Justice Keogh neld that the ♦ exceptions io reference to the Irish marriage should be allowed; Mr. Justice Ball and the Chief Justice, on the other hand were of opinion that all the exceptions should be overruled. The Court being equally divided, the verdict stands ; but the defendant can still bring the case before the Court of Error.]

Mrs. Yelverton appeared lately as plaintiff in au action for defamation of character by a libel contained in a letter from a Mr. James Walker to the Hon. William Henry Yelverton, brother to Lord Avonmore, in uhich she was describedas a "most degraded woman." The cause was tried before Lord Ardmillan and a jury at the Courtof Session, Edinburgh. The Jury found H verdict for the plaintiff, damages £500, and the result was received with loud cheers.