The Yelverton marriage case : Thelwall v. Yelverton : comprising an authentic and unabridged account of the most extraordinary trial of modern times, with all its revelations, incidents and details : specially reported.
- Avonmore, William Charles Yelverton, Viscount, 1824-1883.
- Date:
- 1861
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The Yelverton marriage case : Thelwall v. Yelverton : comprising an authentic and unabridged account of the most extraordinary trial of modern times, with all its revelations, incidents and details : specially reported. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.
132/198 page 128
![I am putting now the case of an inheritor. I assure you I put these questions to you honestly, in the discharge of my duty, to get information. Supposing a man in Scotland dies seized of fee- simple property, without making any will, who is entitled to it ? His eldest lawful son. And if he was unmarried i His brother; his next elder brother in some cases, and in others his next younger. Well, supposing it arises under such circumstances that the wife is not entitled to a dower out of the property, what I want to know is this : in the case I hare mentioned, supposing a suit arises in Scotland, in relation to the title to the property, between the infant child and the uncle, and that on the part of the child the case is put forward of a contract of marriage per verba de preesenli, and that there is no evidence whatever of the contract except the evidence of the woman—her evidence being that on a certain day the father said to her, “ I now take you for my lawful wedded wife,” and that she said to him, “ I now take you for my lawful wedded husband,”—is there any case decided by the law of Scotland laying it down as a definite rule that such evidence would be rejected But is there any case where such evidence has been rejected, where the effect would be to legitimize the child? So far as I can recollect, I do not remember any case in which the question has arisen ; but I do not think the court would receive such evidence nakedly, and unsupported by other facts and instances. Frances Walsh sworn, and examined by Sergeant Armstrong —I was barmaid at the Malahide Hotel in August, 1857. I kept a book in the bar for entering the orders of the house. [Book produced.] The entries are in my handwriting. It was ray habit to enter the matters as they were ordered. I do not know Major Yelverton’s appearance, or th.at of Mrs. Yelverton. I know the rooms lettered 11 and TJ off the north corridor; the first is a sitting-room, and the other a bed-room. Do you remember a gentleman and a lady occupying these rooms in August, 1857 ? I don’t recollect their appearance. From your recollection, are you able to say whether a gentleman and lady had those rooms in August, 1857 ? Yes, Sir. Were they young people or old people ? I have no recollection. Did they tell you any name ? No. How many bed-rooms had they ? I think only one. Were you ever in those rooms while the)' were staying in the house ? I was. Were you ever in the bed-room ? I was. Were you ever in the bed-room wliile they were in it together ? I was not. Were you ever in it befose the bed was made up? I was not. Were you paid the bill ? Was it you received the money ? I am not sure. This closed the evidence for the defendant. Court—Well, now, Sergeant Armstrong, are you ready ? Sergeant Armstrong—Oh! my lord, I expect to have a little more before I am'caUed on to speak. We must see this young lady that has been going to all these places. Court—[To counsel for plaintiff]—Are you going into a rebutting case, gentlemen ? Mr. Whiteside—We shall tell you in one moment, my lord. Sergeant Armstrong tendered several letters, which were in the printed book. Mr. Whiteside objected to those letters being now given in evidence. They had not been put into Miss Longwortas hands during the whole of that long cross-examination which occupied two days. Sergeant Armstrong—The letter I refer to is letter No. 100 in the printed book. It is a letter from Miss Longworth to Major Yelverton, explanatory of a letter (No. 99) from defendant to Miss Longworth. Major Yelverton was cross-examined in reference to that letter, and stated that it had been tampered with. That is the letter terminating in those words— petting possiblemente,” aind which have been mutilated into “sposabella mia.” I desire to put in evidence letter No. 100, explanatory of that letter. After a lengthened argument, the letter was allowed to be given in evidence, counsel for the defendant having admitted that it was written after the alleged marriage. The following letters were then handed in. 100.—Miss Longworth to Major Yelverton. “ Caro Mio,—Arra woke me this morning by inserting your letter under my pillow. How I longed that the spiritual essence of persons contained in a letter could, on opening, be reproduced into corporeal development. I am getting very material, and enjoy solids and substance. I have only eight days now to wait, but every hour seems an age. I never did feel in such a queer state. I cannot curb my impatience and recklessness. Nothing can distract my attention. Even my finger-ends tingle to touch you. It is very absurd, is it not.? but time and I can’t help it. Your plan of sending me oflT to Abergavenny, to remain two or three months, would have nothing short of actual fiendism. All that has been ever written about the pain of separation is quite tame com- pared with reality. ‘ Time, when I pass it with thy sweetness, Flies like the courser to the goal; Where, alas ! will be its fleetness. When thou art parted from my soul ?’](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b28408214_0132.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
