TRIAL OF SIR GIDEON CULLING EABDLEY FOR BIGAMY.

Southland Times, Issue 929, 6 April 1868, Page 3

TRIAL OF SIR GIDEON CULLING EABDLEY FOR BIGAMY.

Sir Gideon Culling Eardley, Bart,, 31, j was placed at the bar of the Central j Criminal Court, London, on the 27th of j January, to take his trial for. feloniously I intarwarrying with Mary Elizabeth' Allen, j at the district church of St. George, • Hanover-square, his wife, Emily Florence Magee, to whom he had been previously married at New York, in the United States of America, being alive. j Mr G-iffard, Q.C., was specially rei tamed to prosecute, with Mr Green i and Mr Benjamin ; Mr Montague Williams was counsel for the defendant. This case appeared to create consideri able interest on account of the position of i the defendant and the circumstances con-, ; nected with the charge. Evidence was adduced to show that on the 12th ! December, 1859, the defendant, being then Mr Eardley, married Miss Emily Florence Magee at New York, and con- . tinued to live with that lady for some i ! time afterwards, when a separation took | place. In the first instance, Sir Culling} j Eardley, the father of the defendant, was -\ ' ignorant of the fact of the marriage hay- j • ing taken place, but when. JhjeL . became ' ! aware of the fact that his son had married : a lady of position and respectability, he I at once acknowledged her as his daughter- j . in-law, and made a settlement of £1500 , ■ a year upon her. After the defendant 'came to the title by the death of his ■ ! father, he seemed to have endeavored to ; procure a reconciliation with his wife, but I she refused to live with him again, and in • September, 1867, the defendant contracted ! a second marriage with a lady named I Alleu, at St. George's Church, Hanover- ; square. The marriage waß advertised in the ' Times,' and the father of the I defendant's, first wife immediately.com-: J menced the present prosecution. ! Mr De Tracy Gould, a member of the j American bar, practising in England, i proved that the marriage in America was '• a perfectly legal ceremony. In answer to questions put to him in cross-examina-tion, he said that according to the law of : America it was not even necessary that i the ceremony should be performed by a 1 clergyman, or in a church, or that any

witiieirees should be present to -realtor it JUvidenoe having been ; give** of the second marriage, Mr M. Williams proceeded to address; the jury for the defendant, and he said that the answer he was instructed to make to the charge on his behalf Yfas that at the time he; OQutracted the second marriage he believed that the* first; marriage was not legally contracted, and it Vf&s not binding upon him. He urged upon, the jury the consideration of the fact that the second wife, who was the party really injured/ had nothing to do with the prosecution, and there was nothing, to show that the defendant had been actuated by mercenary motives in relation to the second marriage. He submitted that if the jury should be of opinion that "the defendant really did not believe that he was com>.uitting an offence. at the time he married the second lady, they would be justified j in acquitting him. I The .Recorder, in summing Up the case to the jury, said that he really did not see any aaswer to the charge, or any facts in the case, that .would justify them in coming to the conclusion that the defendant bad not committed the offence imputed to him. r r . '\ ■'. ) . i ■ ' The jury, after a" irery short delibera^ tion, returned a verdict of guilty^ The Eecorder inquired if the defendant had .obtained any money with his second wife. Mr M: Williams said he !' was informed that he had not. Mr GKffard said he was sorry to inform his worship that the information he had received upon the subject was of a totally different character. The Beeorder, in passing sentence, said that in the absence of any information as to the circumstances connected with the second marriage, the court must deal with the case as it stood. The defendant had deliberately committed a very grave offence, and one that, was calculated to do serious injury to the person who was the victim of it. There did not appear to be any extenuation for his conduct, and the sentence he felt bound to | pass upon him was, that he be imprisoned j and kept to hard labor for eighteen I months. I