In Her Majesty’s Court of Divorce & Matrimonial Causes
Verling falsely called McCarthy
against
McCarthy
Petition
filed 20th May 1858
To the judges of Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes
the twentieth day of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty eight
The petition of Emily Verling spinster falsely called Emily McCarthy wife of Eugene Plummer McCarthy now residing at Hotel des trois Empereux, Rue de Rivoli Paris
Sheweth
That on the twenty eight day of January One thousand eight hundred and thirty nine Eugene Plummer McCarthy Bachelor was lawfully married to Catherine McCarthy then Catherine Cree otherwise Creagh spinster at Cullens Wood Ranelagh in the county of Dublin in Ireland.
That after his said Marriage the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy lived and cohabited with his said wife in Wicklow Street in the City of Dublin until about the eighth day of March in the said year one thousand eight hundred and thirty nine when the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy deserted his said wife Catherine McCarthy.
That on the twenty second day of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty two your petitioner was in fact though not lawfully married to the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy then falsely representing himself to be a Bachelor at St James church in the parish of Islington in the county of Middlesex England.
That on and after the twenty second day of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty two the said Catherine McCarthy the lawful wife of the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy was still living and is yet living.
Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that your Lordships will that the said pretended marriage so in fact solemnized between the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy and your petitioner the said Emily Verling to have been and to be null and void from the beginning and also that the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy and your petitioner the said Emily Verling spinster falsely called Emily McCarthy were and are free from all bond of marriage to each other.
And that your petitioner may have such further and other relief in the premises as to your lordships shall seem moot
(Sittings at Nisi Prius [to determine the facts] before Mr Justice Crompton and a Common Jury.)
O’BRYEN V. GIDDY.
Mr. Serjeant Pigott and Mr. Mathew were counsel for the pIaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant Shee and Mr. Murphy for the defendant.
This was an interpleader issue to determine whether certain goods which had been seized by the sheriff were the goods of the plaintiff The question was whether the plaintiff was the wife of Eugene Plummer Macarty. The plaintiff was an Irish lady, and she contracted a marriage with Macarty in 1844, at Cork. They lived together for eight years, but in 1852 Macarty eloped. with Emily Verling. That caused inquiries to be made, and then it turned out that in 1839 Macarty had married Kate Creagh, near Dublin; that marriage had taken place in a private house, in the presence of a Lutheran clergyman named Schultz. Mr. Serjeant Shee interposed, stating that the question would be whether that marriage was a valid marriage. He submitted that it was not a valid marriage, as it was only performed in the presence of a Dissenting minister, whereas to make it valid it must have been in the presence of a clergyman of the Church of England or a Roman Catholic priest.
Mr. Justice Crompton said that from a decision of the House of Lords the law would be that it must be before a priest in orders It might be better to turn it into a case ; the parties might go to the Queen’s Bench, then to the Exchequer Chamber, and then to the House of Lords.
Mr. Serjeant Pigott said the 5th and 6th of Victoria, cap. 113, made the marriage good, as that provided that a marriage solemnized by a Dissenting minister would be valid.
Mr. Justice Crompton thought that would make the first marriage valid
Mr. Serjeant Shee said the marriage must be proved.
Evidence was then given, showing that Macarty married Miss O’Brien in 1844. They lived together until he eloped with Emily Verling in 1852. He then said he had been previously married to Kate Creagh. They lived together for some time, and then Miss O’Brien was persuaded that the marriage with Kate Creagh in 1839 was invalid and she took Macarty back again. He again eloped with Emily Verling, and married her, and they lived together until she ran away with some one else. The marriage of Kate Creagh was then sworn to as having taken place before Mr. Schultz in 1839. .Macarty was an attorney in Dublin. Kate Creagh in her interrogatory stated that she was the daughter of a gentleman’s servant. She was married to Macarty in 1839. Macarty left her in six months, and she was in the poor- house. She had left off her previous calling of receiving gentlemen for the last seven years, and was now living a respectable life with her brother.
The plaintiff was examined, and stated that she was married to Macarty in 1844. She now lived in Westbourne- place, Eaton-square. She was entitled to 1,500I.(£1,500) under her mother’s marriage settlement. She had, a settlement in 1852, after which Macarty left her with Emily Verling, who was a visitor in her house. He afterwards returned and lived with witness in Warwick-place, Pimlico; and afterwards in Upper Belgrave-place, of which the defendant was the landlord. She left that house in June, 1860. On the 25th of July, 1861, she had a sum of money put into her hands under a decree of the Court, and she furnished the house in Westbourne-place. That furniture was seized by the sheriff. Macarty had not lived with her in that house.
Cross-examined.-Macarty on the first occasion stayed away three weeks. She brought him back. He went away again in May, and returned in July, 1852, and went away again in 1855, but returned and remained till 1858. None of the furniture seized was in her possession in 1858. When she took the house of the defendant she represented herself to be the wife of Macarty, because she believed herself to be so until the Lord Chancellor’s decree in 1861. Macarty had dined with her twice in Westbourne-terrace. He was uninvited. He was in a wretched state of poverty, and any one would have given him a dinner out of pity. He had been prosecuted for bigamy.
A copy of a certificate of the Archbishop of Ireland was put in, authorizing Schultz to preach and administer the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of Ireland.
The learned Judge had great doubt about this document.
Mr. Isaac Butt, Q.C., had seen this document. According to the law of Ireland such a document could only be given to a priest in holy orders. In Ireland every curate received such a licence. In substance, this was the ordinary licence to a curate.
Cross-examined.-He meant holy orders by episcopal ordination, which the Established Church would recognize. A bishop would grossly violate his duty if he granted such a document to a man not in holy orders; that is, because no one could administer the sacrament in the Church of England who was not in holy orders.
Re-examined.-There was no objection to a marriage in a room before the Act of 1844. Did not consider this a German licence, but one to a curate of the Church of England.
Frederick Wisely, a policeman, and a native of Ireland recollected Schultz. Saw him perform a marriage ceremony at a private residence.
Cross-examined.-Was a witness on the occasion. It was about three years before 1847.
Serjeant Shee.-It is rather strange that he was buried in 1839.
Mr. Serjeant Pigott said that was his brother.
Cross-examined. -Did not know Schultz at the time of the marriage, but heard afterwards that a Mr. Schultz was living there. He was a dark-complexioned, old man. Took Macarty into custody in July last for bigamy, and then he heard of this marriage in 1839 by Schultz.
The learned Judge said there were great doubts about the case, but he thought it would be better to let the plaintiff have the goods without costs on either side.
Mr. Serjeant Shee said it was a hard case, but he should defer to his Lordship’s suggestion.
The Judge said, if they had proved that Schultz had officiated in any way there would have been no doubt. No action must be brought against any one.
Verdict for plaintiff without costs.
The Judge said this was the best arrangement, as parties now might have the pleasure of going from Nisi Prius to the full Court, then to the Court of Error, and then to the House of Lords, but at an enormous expense.
Mr. Eugene Plumber McCarthy, described as a solicitor and notary public in Ireland, has undergone a lengthened examination, on two charges of bigamy and one of perjury, at Westminster Police-office, London.
Mr. Lewis, sen., was engaged for the prosecution.
Dr. John O’Bryan, of 17, Thistle-grove, Brompton, produced a certificate from the registry of the Rev. J. G. F. Shultz, in the Consistorial Court, Dublin. The prisoner was there described as Eugene M’Carthy, and the marriage which took place on the 28th of January, 1839, was between Catherine Creagh and Eugene M’Carthy. Witness also produced certificate the marriage of Mary Anne O’Bryan, in the parish church of St. Peter’s, in the county of Cork, to Eugene M’Carthy, on the 29th of June, 1844,
The first marriage was also proved by a witness who was present the ceremony. It was here explained that the clergyman question was what is called ” a couple beggar.”
Mr. Lewis pointed out that his marriages were valid, or they would not be registered in the Consistory Court
Mr. Ingleby Thomas Miller, solicitor, George-yard, Lombard-street, produced two letters from the prisoner, which were proved to be in his handwriting, dated the 5th and 9th of September, 1860, in which, in allusion to his first marriage, the prisoner urged that he was very young at the time; that Catherine Creagh had lived with him previously; that neither of them ever considered it as a valid marriage; that she left him shortly afterwards, considering that there were no marital obligations; that after he was married in 1844, at St Peter’s, to Miss O’Bryan, repeatedly saw Catherine Creagh in the streets, and, attaching no value to her marriage, she never sought him, or required anything of him, although his marriage with Miss O’Bryan had been published in the newspapers, and must have been well known to her. The question having been tried one of the courts of law, it had been determined by the authorities that marriages like the one spoken of were valid. The writer said he had seen Catherine Creagh in Cork as late as 1855.
Prisoner said that these letters were dated from Woolwich, and he never was there.
Mr. Lewis intimated that Catherine Creagh was alive now, and had given evidence a few days ago in the Court of Chancery respecting some property transactions.
Prisoner said that a woman had been brought from Ireland certainly.
Mr. Miller, on being cross-examined by the prisoner, said that about the time the letters were received there was some treaty about the raising of some money; the object was that the settlement should be set aside. He was about to lend Miss O’Bryan some money, and he wanted to be satisfied on some points relating to the prisoner.
A passage in one of the letters purporting be written by the prisoner was pointed out as showing that he well knew his first wife to be alive at the time of his marriage with Miss O’Bryan. It stated that Catherine Creagh resided at Cork in 1844; that she continued to live there, and that he repeatedly saw her.
Miss Mary Ann O’Bryan, who described herself as single woman, said that she was married on the 29th June, 1844, to the prisoner.
This was the evidence in support of the first bigamy, and the second was not proceeded with.
Mr. Lewis proposed that the evidence of the first marriage should copied upon the depositions in this case, and called
The Rev. W. Bell Mackenzie, incumbent of St James’, Hollowav, who stated that on the 22nd of May, 1852, performed the marriage ceremony with Eugene M’Carthy and Emily Verling. They signed the register, which produced.
Dr. John O’Bryan proved that the name of M’Carthy was in prisoner’s handwriting. Miss O’Bryan said that Emily Verling, unfortunately, resided in the same house with herself and husband; prisoner and Miss Verling left the house together.
It was stated that Miss Verling, finding she had been deceived, left the prisoner and went abroad. Mr. Arnold asked what evidence there was to show that in 1852 prisoner knew his first wife was alive?
Mr. Lewis said that the letter proved that he knew she was alive after 1854.
Mr. Arnold pointed out that he might have become acquainted with that fact in 1854, but might have been ignorant of it 1852.
A certificate was now produced in the third case against the prisoner, in which he had sworn, on his application for a licence to be married to Miss Verling, on the 19th May, 1862, that he was a bachelor.
Mr. Arnold observed that the question in this case would again arise, whether in 1852 the prisoner knew that his first wife was alive.
Miss O’Bryan was again called to supply the proof required, and her brother was also put into the witness-box to give secondary evidence of the contents of a letter written by the prisoner, which had been destroyed. It was addressed to Dr. O’Bryan, and was written after his connexion with Miss Verling, and stated that he had left his (Dr. O’Bryan’s)sister because she was not his wife; that in 1839 he was married to Catherine Creagh, who died in 1851, and was buried at a cemetery described. At first he stated that he was married to Miss Verling, as he was at that time an unmarried man.
Mr. Arnold said that this evidence was not against the prisoner, but in his favour.
Mr. Lewis applied to have the depositions copied up for prisoner’s committal on all the charges, and asked for remand for witnesses from Ireland.
Mr. Arnold remanded the prisoner for a week, but said that at present he could only commit upon the first charge, as the others were not proved.
MONTENEGRIN RELIEF FUND. It is announced that the Montenegrin Relief Fund, which was instituted at the out- break of the Great War by Sir John Roper Parkington, Consul-General for Montenegro in Great Britain, who died last year, is about to be closed. About £80,000 in all was collected,[ the modern day equivalent would be about £ 24,000,000] and many thousands of destitute Montenegrin refugees were helped, including a member of the late King’s family and some of the Cabinet and representatives of the aristocracy. A large number of refugees proceeded to America. Outstanding contributions should be sent to the fund’s offices, 30, Bucklersbury, E.C.4, addressed to Sir William H. Thomas.
Bow-Street.-A middle aged man, of gentlemanly appearance, named Eugene Macarthy, was brought up in custody of Inspector Scott, of the A division of police, the officer in charge at the Reading-room of the British Museum before the sitting magistrate, Mr. Henry, on a charge of stealing from the reading-room six books-viz., Dugdale’s “Antient Usage of Arms,” the “Historical Memoirs of the Irish Rebellion of 1641,”Dod’s “Parliamentary Companion”, Lawless’s “Ireland,” Hegel’s “Philosophy”, and a work in the Irish language, the title of which in English is “Christians’ Instructions”
Mr Poland, the barrister, attended to prosecute for the Trustees of the Museum, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Morgan, solicitor.
It appeared that the prisoner, who had practised as a solicitor in Ireland, was recently prosecuted for marrying Miss Mary Anne O’Brien during the lifetime of his former wife.
In the course of that prosecution he wrote a letter to Mr. Miler, Miss O’Brien’s solicitor, applying for certain books, papers, &-c., which he had left in her care at the time when they were living together as husband and wife. Mr. Miller submitted to her brothers, Dr. John O’Brien and Mr. Stephen H. O’Brien, tho prisoner’s letter, which was as follows:-
” 2, Caroline-street East, Camden-town, Aug. 7.
“Sir,- I venture to trespass on your kind indulgence to ask the favour of your either preferring the request yourself,or forwarding the request to 30, Westbourne-place, that certain books and MSS., with some other things, fairly mine, and of much moment to me, may be forwarded here by parcels’ delivery:- a hat-box and an old carpet-bag, both containing MSS., with a small writing-case,. I would have have asked this earlier of you, but severe illness prevented me till now. I apologize for addressing you, but really not knowing whom else to ask of, will excuse me. I am your obedient servant,”
“E. P. Macarthy.”
Book Stacks, British Museum Reading Room
Mr. Miller advised the Messrs. O’Brien, acting on behalf of their sister, to deliver up to Mr. Macarthy all books, papers, or other property belonging to him, but with the precaution that they should carefully examine such articles, and make a list of them. In the course of the examination which was made, in conformity with Mr. Miller’s advice,Dr. O’Brien discovered that among the books left by the prisoner in Miss O’Brien’s care were two which had evidently belonged to some library. These were the ” Historical Memoirs of the the Irish Rebellion of 1641” and Dugdale’s “Antient Usage of Arms” .It first struck Dr. O’Brien that these works were impressed with a crown on the binding, and were marked with certain numbers. Upon a closer scrutiny he came to the conclusion that they were stolen from the Reading-room of the British Museum. He at once proceeded to the Museum and submitted the books to the inspection of Mr. Rye, one of the principal assistants there. Mr. Rye identified the books as having been stolen from the Reading-room. [The Reading Room was officially opened on 2 May 1857 ] They had been given out in July, 1857, to a reader named Macarthy, and had never been returned. The were missed on the 1st of September, 1857. At that time the prisoner was a reader at the Museum. He became a reader on the 22nd of July that year, when he entered his name in the usual manner in the readers’ book, and that signature was proved, to be in his handwriting. His name was also entered in his own hand- writing on the fly-leaves of the books, and in one of them a label engraved with the Macarthy arms had been pasted over the Museum press mark. Upon this label the mottoes of the Macarthy family were written in Latin and in Irish, in the prisoner’s handwriting.
There was also found among the books left in Miss O’Brien’s care by the prisoner, four other books:-viz., Dod’s Parliamentary Companion, Lawless’, Ireland, Hegel’s Philosophy, and The Christians’ Instructions, all bearing the press mark, and all identified as having been missed from the Museum prior to the 1st of September. They were all marked with the prisoner’s signature and other memoranda, and marginal notes in his handwriting. Upon this information, Inspector Scott apprehended the prisoner at the Central Criminal Court, when he attended to take his place upon tho charge of bigamy. He was then taken to the station-house in Bow- street, but was not brought before the magistrate, as it was agreed, in order to leave him free to answer the charge of bigamy, that the present charge should be postponed until the other prosecution had been disposed of. He was convicted of the bigamy, and sentenced to a week’s imprisonment at the expiration of which period he was again apprehended by Inspector Scott, and brought up at Bow- street on the present charge.
Dr., Mr., and Miss O’Brien, Inspector Scott, and other witnesses, including Mr. Rye and Mr. Holder of the British Museum, were examined at great length in support of these charges.
Mr. Morgan, in cross-examining Miss O’Brien, asked her whether she had not herself held a ticket of admission to the Reading room of the Museum, and whether she had not signed her name in the readers’ book.
She replied to both questions in the affirmative.
Mr. Poland observed that he was glad those questions had been put, as it would enable him to show that Miss O’Brien was not a reader until after the time at which the books had been stolen.
The readers’ book, in which Mr. Macarthy’s signature had already been proved, was now again produced, and Miss O’Brien swore to her own signature as “Mary Ann Macarthy” (at that time she believed herself to be Mr. Macarthy’s wife). It was under the date 14th October,1857.
Mr. Poland called the magistrate’s attention to the fact that all these books had been missed from the Museum on the 1st September, being six weeks before Miss O’Brien had admission to the Reading room.
Mr. Morgan said,-After the evidence which we have beard, I think that the most prudent thing for the prisoner is to decline to say anything.
The prisoner was committed for trial, without bail.
Mr. Eugene Plumber M’Carthy, solicitor and notary public in Ireland, was charged on remand with double bigamy and perjury in making an affidavit to obtain a licence for his third alleged marriage. The evidence previously taken in support of the charges went to show that the prisoner was married on the 28th of January, 1839, to Catherine Creagh, at Cullenswood, near Dublin, by the Rev. J. G. F. Schultz; that he was again married on the 29th of June, 1844, to Miss Mary Anne O’Bryan, at St. Peter’s, in the county of Cork ; and again to Emily Reiley [sic. Actually Emily Verling] at St. James’s, Holloway, on the 22d of May, 1852. The affidavit for the last marriage set forth that the prisoner was a bachelor.
Yesterday, upon the prisoner being again brought up, Mr. Wontner attended on his behalf, and the case was reopened, the validity of the first marriage being questioned. The proof of this marriage rested upon the testimony of Mr. Harrington, who was present when that ceremony was performed. Letters were written by the accused many years afterwards to Mr. Mellor, a solicitor, which were produced and repeatedly referred to. In one, dated the 5th of September, 1860, at 16, Eaton-street, Woolwich, he says:-” I could have wished that the recital of the marriage of 1839 should exonerate me from committing a deliberate fraud in tho marriage of 1844. It was some years subsequent to the latter date that the validity of a marriage, without bans or a licence, by a Dissenting minister, was recognized. All the circumstances attending the marriage of 1839 strengthen the conviction that it was worthless, until, to my consternation, the Courts decided otherwise. I was then a very young man. The woman lived with me previously, and a certificate was had only to save appearances. In 1839 we separated, the woman no more than myself viewed it as valid. She resided in the city of Cork. I also resided near it. She never sought me, and knew where I was residing. I was married by licence in 1844 at St. Peter’s, Cork. Frequently saw the woman in the street. Was never molested or accosted by her. Never made the least claim upon me,for she, as well as myself, attached no value to the marriage and I remained so contented until, as I have already said, the question was raised on circumstances similar, and the Courts decided their validity; hence I am fairly entitled to be absolved from any fraud in making the contract of 1844.”
A postscript adds,-” I need scarcely add, you shall find me ready to do any and every act you may deem necessary to secure Mrs. M’s rights; as recompense for an involuntary wrong it is justly due.”
The second letter is in the following terms, dated Woolwich, September 9, 1860:-
“The place of celebration of the ceremony of 1839 was in Cullenswood,a suburb of Dublin; the celebrant. the Rev.Mr. Schultz, a German Lutheran minister, at his residence. The register he keeps is in the Prerogative or Consistorial Court, Dublin, lodged or impounded there since his marriages were first questioned. I can afford no information of Creagh’s death. I did hear it occurred in 1855, but where I know not. It may have been Cork, the last place I heard of her. But persons of her class assume new names, and have aliases for every week of the year,- and it may be no easy matter to satisfactorily trace her. She was in London a considerable time after 1839, and in Dublin also as long. There can be no doubt that she was in Cork early in 1855, and no difficulty in proving it. The decision settling the validity of Schultz’s marriages is well known in Ireland, and I have no doubt many a heedless young man found himself snared by it as I did.” – The letter concludes with some remarks about the settlement deed before alluded to.
Miss Mary Anne O’Bryan, 30, Westbourne-place, Eaton. square, was cross-examined by Mr. Wontner. She said she was first acquainted by her brother, Dr. O’Bryan, with the prisoner’s first marriage in 1852. She did not then believe it. The witness was married in 1844 and continued to live with the prisoner until 1852, when he went away with Miss Railey. [sic. Actually Emily Verling]. The witness fetched him back, but he went away again with her. She and her family sold off his goods. She could not say whether her brother took the prisoner’s position of notary at Queenstown. This was the first time she ever heard her brother was notary. She had heard Robert O’Bryan was practising there as notary, but this was mere hearsay. When married to the prisoner her property was not settled upon her; but, after being married seven or eight years, he settled it upon her in April 1852. In 1860 she was desirous of recovering the sole control of the property, and instituted a suit in the Irish Chancery Court. He wrote the two letters produced to facilitate her getting the money out of court. The witness and the prisoner were living together in 1860, when these letters were written. The witness did not read them before they were sent but posted them herself as the prisoner was lame. The witness continued to live with him after this, but left him when she found she could. It was June 12 months when she last lived with him; she had since corresponded with him in answer to his letters for money, and had seen him, but not frequently. He had lived in Belgrave and Warwick Places, and there being some arrears of rent an execution was put in, when she declared herself to be a single woman. She could not say her brothers gave him into custody on his coming to the house at that time for this bigamy.
Mr. Harrington, the only witness to the first alleged marriage, said he was present at Schultz’s when the prisoner and Catherine Creagh were there. He was present at the prisoner’s invitation. Schultz was a very notorious person; he performed marriages when persons had not time to contract them through the Church. There was a ceremony of some sort gone through, but he could not say what. Schultz read and spoke in some form, and witness believed the parties were married at that time. He saw no books used by either of the parties, and never saw such a marriage before. The prisoner said he was anxious to make Catherine Creagh reparation and marry her. He could not say whether Schultzwas in canonicals. He thought he saw the parties kneel, but could not say
An Irish policeman was called to prove that Schultz’s marriage had been acted upon as valid in the courts of law in that country.
Mr. Arnold thought that, with the letter and the evidence of Mr. Harrington of a ceremony, there was a prima facie case made out.He committed the accused for trial upon the first charge of intermarrying with Miss O’Bryan while his former wife, Catherine (Creagh), was alive, but he offered to take one surety in £ 20, as he thought it was not a case in which the prisoner should be locked up.
CHARGE OF BIGAMY—A MAN WITH THREE WIVES.—Eugene P. M’Carthy, a solicitor and public notary in Ireland, described as having no fixed residence, was charged with intermarrying with Catherine Craigh, otherwise Cree, his former wife, Mary Jane O’Brien, being still alive.
Mr. Stephen O’Brien, brother of the second wife, residing at Queenstown, produced papers proving the second marriage in July, 1854, at Dublin, and he further stated that the prisoner subsequently married Mary Ann Bunning, at St. James’s Church, Islington. The first marriage took place on the 29th of January, 1839.
Dr. James O’Brien, brother of the prosecutor, corroborated the evidence.
The prisoner was remanded for the attendance of the witnesses to attest the respective marriages.
As ever, the Cork Examiner is enthusiastic, but fairly sloppy in its reporting, just like it was in Pauline Roche’s case four years earlier. It manages to get the third wife’s name wrong, [they call her Mary Ann Bunning, she is in fact Emily Verling]. They also say the second marriage took place in Dublin, in 1854, when it actually took place in St Peter’s church in Cork in 1844. Finally they turn great great grandpa into James rather than John .
Eugene Plummer Macarthy’s conviction for bigamy at the Old Bailey is very brief
THIRD COURT.—Friday, August 22nd, 1862.
PRESENT—Sir JOHN MUSOROVE, Bart., Ald.; and Mr. COMMON SERJEANT.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
Reference Number: t18620818-888
888. EUGENE PLUMBER M’CARTHY (44) , Feloniously marrying Mary Ann O’Brien, his wife being then alive; to which he
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined One Week.
Reference Number: t18620818-889
889. EUGENE PLUMBER M’CARTHY was again indicted for feloniously marrying Emily Verling, his wife being then alive.
No evidence was offered for the prosecution.
NOT GUILTY
from www.oldbaileyonline.org
There has to be some significance in the sentence only being a week.
This goes with Eugene Macarthy’s trial at the Middlesex Sessions on September 2, 1862 for the theft of books from the British Museum. One of the questions from that was who are “Miss O’Bryen”, the wronged wife, “Mr O’Bryen” her brother, and “Dr. O’Bryen, another brother,”. as the principal witnesses; the defence barrister censures “the conduct of the O’Bryens in imputing matters which had nothing to do with the case.” Are they members of the family, and if they are who exactly are they?
There are alternative spellings of names M’Carthy/Macarthy, O’Brien/O’Bryen/O’Bryan but some solid indications they may be John Roche O’Bryen, his only surviving sister Mary Anne O’Bryen, and one of their brothers. The Times report spells all their surnames O’Bryen in its September report of the theft trial, but as O’Bryan in the bigamy indictment report of July 1862. The Old Bailey transcripts has Mary as “Mary Ann O’Brien”. and “Emily Verling,” the name on the second indictment which is interesting. Ellen Verling was the O’Bryens’ great aunt [their grandfather John Roche’s sister] and had a daughter who was also called Ellen, as well as at least two sons, James Roche Verling, a naval surgeon, and Bartholomew Verling. The Times however calls her “Emily Reiley”, and refers to their marriage at St. James’s, Holloway.
The circumstantial evidence is begining to build up, but more comes from Eugene M’Carthy’s indictment for trial at Westminster Police Court, as reported in The Times in July 1862. But in the meantime, the Cork Examiner is enthusiastic, but fairly sloppy in its reporting, just like it was in Pauline Roche’s case four years earlier. It manages to get Mary Anne’s name wrong, the places both weddings took place wrong, and the bigamous second marriage date ten years later than it happened. As well as moving it from Cork to Dublin.
The Cork Examiner, 17 July 1862
LONDON POLICE—WESTMINSTER, TUESDAY.
CHARGE OF BIGAMY—A MAN WITH THREE WIVES.—Eugene P. M’Carthy, a solicitor and public notary in Ireland, described as having no fixed residence, was charged with intermarrying with Catherine Craigh, otherwise Cree, his former wife, Mary Jane O’Brien, being still alive.
Mr. Stephen O’Brien, brother of the second wife, residing at Queenstown, produced papers proving the second marriage in July, 1854, at Dublin, and he further stated that the prisoner subsequently married Mary Ann Bunning, at St. James’s Church, Islington. The first marriage took place on the 29th of January, 1839.
Dr. James O’Brien, brother of the prosecutor, corroborated the evidence.
The prisoner was remanded for the attendance of the witnesses to attest the respective marriages.
This is one of those great stories that you stumble across every so often if you’re lucky. This has the intriguing addition of “Miss O’Bryen”, the wronged wife, and the help from “Mr O’Bryen” her brother, and “Dr. O’Bryen, another brother,”, as the principal witnesses; the defence barrister censures “the conduct of the O’Bryens in imputing matters which had nothing to do with the case.” Are they members of the family?
Middlesex Sessions September 2, 1862
(Before Mr Serjeant GASELEE)
Eugene Plummer Macarthy, 44, a man of gentlemanly exterior, described in the calendar as “formerly a soldier”, with a superior education, was indicted for stealing six printed books, the property of the trustees of theBritish Museum.
Mr. Serjeant Parry (specially retained) and Mr. Poland (instructed by Messrs. Brae and Co, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury) appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Ribton (instructed by Mr. Morris, of Beaufort-buildings, Strand) defended the prisoner.
This was a somewhat extraordinary case, and the facts, as detailed by the learned counsel who conducted the prosecution, appeared to be as follows :-
A short time ago the prisoner was tried at the Central Criminal Court on a charge of bigamy, there being two indictments against him he pleaded guilty to one of them, and there was no evidence offered in support to the other, and only a short term of imprisonment was passed upon him. At the termination of his sentence he was apprehended on the present charge, taken before a magistrate, and committed for trial The charge against the prisoner was for stealing six books from the British Museum about five yeas ago, he then having the privilege of admission as a reader to the reading-room. Itseemed that the prisoner obtained a ticket of admission to the building upon the recommendation of Mr. W. H. Gordon, of Princess- street, Cavendish-square, on the 22nd of July 1857, upon which day be attended and signed the book required to be signed by readers on their first admission. In the letter of recommendation he was stated to be a member of the Irish bar, and that he was desirous of prosecuting some researches into Irish history connected with his name and family, having for some years ceased to practise at the bar, and that in the interval he had been residing at Toulouse with Vicomte de Macarthy, his father,and that his stay in England would not be protracted. He came frequently to the reading-room, and had the use of a great number of books and MSS., and it would seem that on the very day after his first admission a book which he had, entitled Christian Instruction, was missing from the library.
On the 23rd of June, 1858, he was expelled from the library for writing on a manuscript, but on his representing to Mr. Panizzi [Sir Antonio Genesio Maria Panizzi (1797 – 1879). He was the Principal Librarian at the British Museum from 1856 to 1866, having been first Assistant Librarian (1831–37), then Keeper of Printed Books (1837–56). He was knighted by Queen Victoria in 1869] that he merely corrected an error, and believed that he was rendering a service to future readers, he was re-admitted to the reading-room in the following month of July. The prisoner represented that he was collecting materials for biographies of his country-men engaged in foreign services, and that some of them had appeared in the Dublin University Magazine, and it was important to a certain degree, as five out of the six of the books which the prisoner was charged with stealing bore upon Irish history and titles of honour.
The Reading Room, British Museum
Three of the books were kept on shelves in the reading-room, from which readers were allowed to help themselves, and they were missed in 1858. The other three required a ticket to be filled up, with the title and reference to the museum catalogue, but it was supposed some fraud had been perpetrated in respect of the tickets for these books, so that they should not be produced against him. Since the prisoner was committed by the magistrates access had been obtained to his papers, and among them had been found a ticket upon which he obtained one of the books,but two other tickets were not forthcoming.
At the August Sessions, at the Central Criminal Court the prisoner was indicted for bigamy, in having married Miss O’Bryen, in 1844, his former wife being then alive. There was also a second indictment for marrying a third wife, the other two being alive, and when he was on bail on these charges, he wrote to Mr Miller the solicitor who was acting for Miss O’Bryen, a letter, requesting that some books which were in Miss O’Bryen’s possession, and belonging to him might be returned to him. When Miss O’Bryen discovered that she was not his lawful wife, she ceased to live with him, and the books and papers were kept in a bag ready to be delivered to the prisoner whenever he should apply for them. Upon the receipt of this letter an examination of the books and papers was made by Mr. O’Bryen, the brother of Miss O’Bryen .
On the 19th of August Dr. O’Bryen, another brother, being at the house in Westbourne place, observed on the table two books, the subject of these proceedings, which he immediately supposed to belong to some public library, and on a little further examination he was led to think that they belonged to the British Museum. On the same day he took these books to the British Museum, and, having shown them to Mr. Rye, the assistant-keeper of the printed books, he at once identified them as belonging to the Museum library. Mr. Rye on the same day went to Westbourne-place, and made a further examination, when other books belonging to the British Museum were found and identified. No doubt being entertained that the prisoner had become unlawfully possessed of the books in question, it was determined to institute a prosecution against him on behalf of the trustees of the British Museum, and he was arrested and charged with the theft, and after being remanded, Mr. Henry committed him for triaL.
Several witnesses having been called to substantiate these facts,
Mr. Ribton rose to address the jury for the prisoner, and said the first thing which would be for their consideration was,-Did the books in question belong to the British Museum, and if so were they removed by the prisoner ? If they were satisfied of that, the next and most important question they would have to consider was,-Were they taken away by him with an intention of stealing them ? That was a very important question to consider, for in point of law the mere taking of an article away was not stealing, unless at the time of taking it there was an intention of stealing it, and to deprive the owner of it altogether. The mere act of applying the article to his own use was not sufficient, and unless they were satisfied that there was an animo furandi, they could not find the prisoner guilty of stealing. Having paid attention to the facts of the case, he would ask the jury whether they could safely and conscientiously say, supposing Mr. Macarthy took these books from the British Museum, that he intended to steal them, by permanently depriving the trustees of the British Museum of them and appropriating them to his own use. There was every presumption that the prisoner intended to return the books, for he attended the British Museum for a legitimate and honourable purpose, for he had written an article called the O’Byrnes of Wicklow, inserted in the Dublin University Magazine, and sometimes wrote for newspaper and periodicals. He had no intention of felony, for when he took them he did so that he might carefully peruse them, and although it might be a breach of the regulations of the Museum to take books away, that was a very different thing from stealing them. Having censured the conduct of the O’Bryens in imputing matters which had nothing to do with the case, he said, even if the jury had a doubt in the case, the prisoner was entitled to acquittal at their hands, and he trusted the benefit of it would be cheerfully acceded to him.
Mr Serjeant Gaselee very carefully summed up the evidence.
The jury, after a few minutes’ consultation, returned a verdict of Guilty of stealing.
Mr. Serjeant Gaselee said it was painful to see a person in the position in life of the prisoner charged with such an offence, as from his education he ought to have set an example, and was not exposed to the same temptations as those they were in the habit of punishing every day. He could well understand that the prisoner felt his position painfully, but the Court had a public duty to perform, and to show that the administration of the law was equal with high and low, rich and poor, and, as the position in society of the prisoner made his offence the more heinous, it would be his duty to pass a severe sentence.
Prisoner.-Oh ! my Lord, I pray you to temper justice with mercy.
Mr Serjeant Gaselee said that was the feeling of the whole bench, but, having given the case the fullest consideration, they had come to a conclusion upon it, and the sentence of the Court was that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for 18 months.
Prisoner. –I did not expect so severe a sentence as that.
In addition to the request from the Corporation, the Lord Mayor has now received an influential and largely signed requisition from bankers, merchants, and traders in the City asking him ” to call a public meeting at the Guildhall at the earliest convenient date to protest against the imposition of the new telephone rates until Parliament has been consulted, and a proper and full inquiry has taken place.” Among the signatures are those of the President and Chairman of the London Chamber of Commerce, Messrs. Cook, Son, and Co., Messrs. Henry Tate and Sons, Messrs. Samuel Hanson and Son, the London Commercial Sale Rooms (Limited), the Corn Exchange Company, Messrs. John Howell and Co., Messrs. T. and R. Morley, Messrs. Mappin and Webb, Messrs. James Spence and Co., Sir Roper Parkington, Sir James Martin, and over 100 members of the Stock Exchange. The meeting will be called at an early date. When the Cardiff Telephones Advisory Committee met yesterday it was announced that several members desired to tender their resignations in order to show their resentment of the action of the Post- master-General in not consulting the advisory committees of the country before determining to advance the telephone rates. This was regarded as a direct breach of the pledge that the advisory committees should be consulted in all matters relating to the telephone service.
