Affidavit of Eugene Plummer McCarthy, July 1858

In Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Verling falsely called McCarthy



Affidavit of Eugene Plummer McCarthy in support of an answer

In Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Emily McCarthy formely Verling petitioner

Eugene Plummer McCarthy respondent

Affidavit of respondent verifying and supporting answer

Wm F Morris

13 Beaufort Buildings


In Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Emily McCarthy formely Verling petitioner

Eugene Plummer McCarthy respondent

I, Eugene Plummer McCarthy of thirteen Beaufort Buildings Strand in the county of Middlesex, Attorney at law and Notary Public, the above named respondent make oath and say

  1. That I was not upon the occasion of my first marriage married at at Cullenswood, Ranelagh in the county of Dublin as alleged by petitioner, and that it is untrue that I deserted my first wife.
  2. That if it be the fact that my first wife be still alive I humbly submit that some more authentic and reliable evidence thereof should be offered than the unsupported and interested averment of the petitioner herself.
  3. That in the event of any such evidence being procurable, a prosecution for bigamy should be instituted against me which I am ready and desirous of defending.
  4. That I never before heard her death questioned or disputed until it was done so by the petitioner, being instigated thereto, as I fully believe, by one George Wilson Grove, and it is scarcely consistent with the fact of the existence of my first wife that although I resided nearly continuously for fourteen years in the vicinity of the city of Cork practising as a solicitor and Notary, no single claim or demand for or in respect of any such alleged existing wife was ever made on me directly or indirectly although the woman now alleged and set up by petitioner as my first wife was during the whole of said time, as I am informed and believe a native and resident in the city of Cork, where she was a common prostitute several years previous to my first marriage and still continues so.
  5. That I was unfortunately married to petitioner at the time and place alleged by her when it was unnecessary to have done so as she had been cohabiting with me previous to marriage without any scruple or compunction, and it was petitioner herself who allured me into a connection with her and planned and suggested the various places of meeting, and also took the various lodgings where I cohabited with her before marriage, the two last of said places being at Brompton and Holloway, at Brompton 24 Pelham Road, at Holloway, St Alban’s Cottage in the vicinity of St James’ church.
  6. That although such cohabitation was and is well known to several persons, petitioner made oath previous to her marriage before William Moore Drew esquire, a Justice of the Peace at Queenstown in Ireland that she had not cohabited with me nor had ever seen me in London.
  7. That petitioner having so sworn falsely and denied upon her oath a fact capable of easy proof is unworthy of any credit and the more so as she has been declared by the Reverend Mr Eyre now of Northampton who was sometime her spiritual advisor to be an Atheist and utterly destitute of all moral or religious principles, her mind having been depraved and demoralised by a Roman Catholic Priest, the Reverend Patrick O’Dwyer with whom she had had an intrigue previous to the misfortune of my marriage with her, which I did not then know. Cardinal Wiseman and several of his clergy are perfectly acquainted with what I state about petitioner and said O’Dwyer.
  8. That by my marriage with petitioner I fell from a position of independence and respectability as petitioner was not associated with by even the members of her own family, her two brothers, one a clergyman, the other a surgeon in the Navy passing her unnoticed, which I subsequently learnt was in consequence of her intrigue with O’Dwyer.
  9. That I lived with petitioner subsequent to my marriage until the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty five in which year I became acquainted with George Wilson Grove who had been a solicitor and was then keeping terms for the Bar at Middle temple, he was then also a second time a widower with one son, and three daughters, the eldest of whom was nearly as old as petitioner and said Grove himself nearly fifty years of age, which facts with all the plausible professions of interest and friendship made by him for petitioner’s and my welfare disarmed all suspicion I’m my mind particularly when he seemed so attentive to his religious duties, having his prayer-book and Bible upon his table at his chambers.
  10. That upon one occasion, a Sunday, I went accompanied by petitioner, to call upon said Grove at his chambers, and found said Grove apparently very devotionally engaged with his prayer-book, whereupon petitioner observed to me “that man can not be a bad man”, but before we left said chambers a prostitute knocked at his door and enquired for him of me who opened the door for her, I then began to know the man’s true character and that he was a hypocrite masking infamy and profligacy under the guise of sanctity, he made a bungling apology and said the woman came to enquire for the gentleman on the upper floor, however  peremptorily cautioned petitioner against ever trusting herself alone with him as I believed him to be a base and treacherous hypocrite.
  11. That in Trinity term one thousand eight hundred and fifty eight Grove was refused his call to the Bar and in the ensuing November he left England pretending he was going to Italy for his health-sake, I did not know he was refused his call for fraud and misappropriation of trust funds, and that he was nearly dependent upon his father’s means for his support.
  12. That within a month after said Grove’s leaving England petitioner left me to proceed to Paris for the avowed purpose of perfecting herself as a singer said Grove having forwarded thirty pounds to her and having also agreed to allow her a hundred and twenty pounds a year until she would be ultimately able to repay him upon her success as a singer, and never supposing said Grove would pursue petitioner to Paris and always hearing her speaking the most contemptuous terms of the intellect of said Grove, designating him “ a poor trifling animal”. I permitted her to go, and it was also arranged by said Reverend Mr Eyre she should reside with some friends of his while in Paris
  13. That on the day of departure from London, petitioner was accompanied by a Mrs Thomas who was proceeding to Brussels and I subsequently discovered petitioner left Mrs Thomas at Folkestone and went to Amiens in France which is a junction of the railway to Brussels although Mrs Thomas was travelling to the same destination and would have accompanied petitioner to Amiens where petitioner remained three days, and I am now thoroughly convinced petitioner spent said three days there with said Grove.
  14. That on her arrival at Paris she wrote to me she could not reside with the family intended for her by the Reverend Mr Eyre, and about the same time I received a letter from said Grove dated at Brussels that “ poor little Mrs Mac Carthy must feel sadly at a loss in such a queer place as Paris,” and as if it was immaterial to him where he resided if I desired it he would at once go to Paris and asking of me to conceal his going there “to prevent tongues babbling about it” to which letter I replied the next post promptly and positively interdicting his going, and that ill-nature had while he was in England been busy connecting my wife’s name with his, and also telling him I was daily becoming better informed of the libertinism of his character from the number of unfortunate women coming to enquire for him and that I would sooner put a stone around my wife’s neck and fling her into the Thames than to have him about her.
  15. That I the same post informed petitioner of said Grove’s request and of my reply to it, to which petitioner wrote a letter now in my possession highly approving of my reply and indignantly censuring said Grove, and that if he attempted going to Paris she would not remain there to be spoken of as she could not be too particular as she was away from her husband, and also wishing “may the Devil take him the brainless jack-ass” meaning said Grove.
  16. That paying no attention either to my entreaties or interdiction nor to the injury which he confessed must ensue if his going was known said Grove went to Paris and positively refused to leave it again and although I used every effort to induce petitioner to act upon her declaration of leaving if he remained she persisted in remaining there and thenceforward to defend said Grove and to calumniate me.
  17. That I wrote and asked said Grove why and for what did he go to Paris? when he confessed the injury certain to arise from his act to which inquiry he wrote to me replying “ I will not condescend to answer you.”
  18. That I then wrote to said Grove’s father detailing his son’s conduct and the profligacy of his character and asking his interposition and also writing that even had his character been ever so moral and spotless he would still be compromising the reputation of petitioner and be inflicting an injury upon her character.
  19. That I being still unwilling to believe petitioner actually criminal and that the acquisition of the object ostensively in view by her made her submit to the infliction of said Grove’s presence, in which opinion I was further fortified by her indignant reprehension of his conduct and character and ridicule of his mental acquirements and personal appearance but when I saw she altered her demeanour and language, still believing her not unfaithful, I went to Paris at much inconvenience upon two occasions to try and induce petitioner to give up any intimacy with said grove or to leave Paris and return with me to London if said Grove’s persecution of her and me was not to cease.
  20. That upon the last occasion of my going to Paris I arrived early in the morning and as I was proceeding towards where petitioner was residing I saw said Grove loitering and waiting in the vicinity of her lodgings, I was naturally highly incensed and upon seeing petitioner I found her dressing to go out. I told her her persecutor was lying in wait for her, when she retorted upon me the most virulent invective and abuse, and declared that she would not leave Paris with me  and was thenceforward done with me, and that she had never read one of my letters but burned them as they reached her though all of said letters were written to her in the most agonising terms depicting the misery and disgrace she was ensuring to herself as well as to me.
  21. That I had not sufficient means to permit me to remain in Paris the better to detect and procure evidence of petitioner’s criminality, and as I saw the utter uselessness of striving to restrain a woman intent on her own ruin and who evinced such a complete disregard to her self-respect or to public opinion. I again returned to London wretched and heartbroken at finding her so shameless and worthless and at being so duped and deceived by her.
  22. That upon my return to London I communicated with the Revered Mr Eyre and put before him all the correspondence between petitioner and myself with said Grove’s letters. Mr Eyre wrote to petitioner several letters, and said Grove without being in the first instance addressed wrote to Mr Eyre an attempted vindication of his conduct, and there can be no doubt said Grove’s addressing Mr Eyre was suggested by petitioner as said Grove was entirely a stranger to him and was done in the hope of defeating the purpose for which I sought Mr Eyre’s interposition.
  23. That Mr Eyre in nearly all his letters to petitioner and to said Grove that petitioner was placed in a false position by said Grove in my absence and against my explicit wishes and insisting upon either petitioner or said Grove leaving Paris, all of which letters and the replies thereto were read to me by said Mr Eyre, and are I believe yet in his possession.
  24. That said Grove evaded leaving Paris but in each of said letters intimated an intention of leaving by a certain time “ if then necessary” which conditional expression was repeated in all his letters to Mr Eyre, and which expression was subsequently explained by said Grove transmitting to Mr Eyre a declaration made by an inmate of the workhouse in the city of Cork that she was my first wife, whereupon Mr Eyre addressed to said Grove the following letter, the original of which is now in my possession;

Cadogan Terrace, Chelsea

May 12 1856


Your last letter which was composed with a good deal of caution, you did not give me the shock you anticipated. My sole and entire object has been for and on behalf of Mrs Mac Carthy. To my mind the course I have to pursue is a clear and unmistakeable as any one street in a town. I have mad my propositions. I gave it as my final decision, and I have no change to make in it yet. I have succeeded in keeping Mr Mac Carthy quiet, but delays, accidents, etc, are rousing him and shaking my confidence, and if I feel I can no longer reasonably withstand his appeals and consent to let him loose woe betide the party he first runs at! After all that has been said and written by you and by Emily, is it, sir your place to take up the case you put? Are you in a position decently to interest yourself in proving Emily a single woman? Is the step likely to justify the past? Has Emily chosen you out as the man to take up her cause at the very moment she consented to escape from you by changing her abode and is professedly  insisting on your leaving Paris? Did you or did you not get the first history of this state of things from Emily herself? You will excuse me, Sir as I know nothing of you, except through this unfortunate business, if I say that nothing I have heard of you has damaged you so much as your own last letter now before me! Only think too what a position you put me in. You ask me to keep Mr Mac Carthy here. I am hesitating as to whether I am not bound in honour, as a gentleman, and in conscience as a Christian to tell him all and send him over instantly to Paris. He already knows you have tried to prove his marriage null. Am I then who has acted all along as his friend and his wife’s to tie his hands here, and let you plot at ease? I presume he has his tale to tell. Are you acting for Emily without her knowledge? Will she take it as a kindness to be proved a ruined woman? Are you acting a gentleman’s part? A gentleman in your position would at least for the sake of appearances employ another and satisfy himself with aiding and obtaining proofs, if even that much. Every time you speak of leaving Paris you add “should it then be necessary.” Now Sir, what has occurred to affect the previous position of things? You ask me for advice, my only advice to you is to act upon what I have already dictated as imperative. I have already told you my mind is clear upon the case. Leave Emily – Leave Paris! It is needless now to comment on the details of your composition. Ah, it is palpably insincere to use no stronger term. I return to the point with which I started. I have advised Emily. I have advised you. If my advice be not acted upon, I shall have no alternative. I must hand the whole matter over to Mr Mac Carthy to deal with as he thinks best. Unless I hear from you immediately in reply to this I shall act on my own discretion.

Meanwhile I am Sir yours etc.

V. Eyre.

25. That I am unacquainted with the reply given by the said Grove to said letter but that unsatisfactory and not calculated to raise him in Mr Eyre’s opinion can be readily inferred from Mr Eyre’s letter in reply to him dated May seventeenth one thousand eight hundred and fifty six, the original of which is also in my possession, and which is as follows:

“Sir, I have to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 15th instant. The nature of that document leaves no other course open to me, but at once to decline all further communication with you”

I am Sir yours etc.

V. Eyre.

26. That I upon enquiry ascertained that the woman who had been induced by said Grove at the suggestion of the petitioner to make such declaration and to falsely represent herself as my first wife had been a prostitute in the city of Cork several years previous to my first marriage and that she continued and continues to be so still.

27. That Mr Eyre insisted on petitioner’s immediate return to London which she did in the month of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty six and was several days in London before I learned it, when I did so I went to her lodgings in Walton Street, Chelsea when I believed her absent and there I found several letters, some addressed to said Grove, amongst them the before mentioned two, and also some written by him all having reference to the concerted attempt to set up a prostitute as my first wife, all of which letters are in my possession.

28. That I was then further convinced with her complicity with Grove’s baseness, and as I was leaving her lodgings I met her at the door returning, when I asked whether she had brought any papers with her from Paris relating to Grove’s attempt, she replied she had not brought any, not knowing they were then in my possession.

29. That petitioner returned at said time to London without any luggage or property whatever, having left it all in Paris as a surety of her return there again.

30. That Mr Eyre was still desirous of believing petitioner did not participate in Grove’s plotting and that she had but acted with greta imprudence, at least he tried to persuade me so, he seemingly being led away by her solemn protestations and her repeatedly saying in his and my presence that if she “ wanted to be bad, it would not be such a worn out old rouè as Grove she would select.”

31. That I then replied to her in Mr Eyre’s presence “prove to me that Grove was not with you at Amiens, I shall try your fidelity by that single test, produce his passport, let me see its visées, if you be innocent, bad as he is I think he will not refuse, if he can, to take such a taint from you, and when you satisfy me, I shall then produce certificates of my first wife’s death and burial.”

32. That she faithfully promised that said passport should be produced, and Mr Eyre at her suggestion but against my express wishes wrote again to said Grove, that if he left Paris and permitted her to pursue her studies unmolested by him, she would return there, and she professed extreme anxiety to return in order to vindicate her reputation for me, when I replied “for heaven’s sake do so, and do not you too be added to your mother and aunt and be like them separated from their husbands.”

33. That she did return to Paris and Grove went to Rouen but she did not produce said passport or any evidence of her innocence for me although I wrote several letters earnestly urging her to do so, all of which letters she left unanswered.

34.  That I put before petitioner, and Mr Eyre, previous to her going as forcibly as I could the additional humiliation i would be subjected to, and petitioner also, if really innocent, by continuing to accept of Grove’s money after our knowledge of his baseness, but no arguments could restrain her, she would  “go to justify herself for me,”  I could not and would not receive her until she was fully disinfected from all the pestilence said Grove had in all his unfaltering heartlessness had heaped upon her.

35. That I said to Mr Eyre in her presence, having a conviction that she was deceiving both him and me, and was not sincere in her desire for vindication, “ Mark me Sir, you will find she is deceiving you and will deceive you as well as me.” I then pressed upon Mr Eyre his writing to some clergyman to visit her and awaken in her some religious convictions as she never said one prayer and never attended any religious services.

36. That I heard nothing of petitioner or of said Grove until the month of May in the present year, when I was informed by a relative who was and is one of the ex officio Guardians of the City of Cork Poor Law Union that said Grove had been writing to the Master and Clerk at the Cork Work-House to try and induce the Guardians to transfer the woman he had suborned, to London to try and me liable for her support (sic) and also asking said Master and Clerk to conceal his name, I was also informed she had left the workhouse and again returned to her former life of prostitution in the city of Cork.

37. That I was urged by any friends and relatives to prosecute said Grove criminally for a conspiracy but consideration for my immediate family withheld my exposure of said Grove’s turpitude so largely blended too with petitioner’s worthlessness.

38. That I have been for a long time convinced, and now fully believe, said Grove had from the first deliberately designed the compromising and degradation of petitioner’s character, and separating and stealing her away from me for his own support by her professional engagements as he was nearly dependant upon his father who is approaching eighty years of age holding the office of Collector of Customs in the City of Gloucester.

39. That in the month of June last past I saw petitioner with another female riding up Regent’s Street in a Hansom Cab, and  I also saw petitioner point me out to her companion, but I made no effort to ascertain her address, but I did endeavour to get up from her through Mr Eyre and Cardinal Wiseman some personal property of mine which I highly value, and I was not then aware of her having presented her petition against me.

40. That I believe she was fulfilling some engagement in London and then and now supporting said Grove, whom I saw on the fifth of July instant in the Haymarket and being persuaded he was going to visit petitioner, I followed him to Manchester Square, where he met a woman, by appearance a prostitute who seemed to be waiting for him, and after nearly an hour’s interview with her he went to number fifty-five Manchester Street, but as he got to the door he caught sight of me and left immediately without knocking.

41. That I was then convinced that petitioner was residing there, and I went towards the door before grove could communicate with her and as I stood by it I distinctly heard her voice as she was practising singing.

42. That the citation served upon me bore date the fifth instant and I believe was directed to be issued by said Grove directly after he had seen me and the Solicitor employed by petitioner is also the Solicitor of said Grove.

43. That I again upon the eighth instant was in the vicinity of her residence, when a person having entered said house and remained some time came from it towards me and served upon me said citation and petition, and I fully believe I was pointed out by petitioner for him.

44. That there is  not any collusion or connivance between me and the said petitioner to annul the marriage.

Sworn in Her Majesty’s

Court for Divorce and Matrimonial

Causes at Westminster Hall

the twenty-ninth day of July 1858

Emily Verling Affidavit May 1858

In Her Majesty’s Court of Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Verling falsely called McCarthy



Affidavit of petitioner

filed 20th May 1858

In Her Majesty’s Court for Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Verling falsely called McCarthy



I Emily Verling commonly called Emily McCarthy of Hotel des trois Empereux, Rue de Rivoli Paris make oath and say

First.  That on the twenty second day of May one thousand eight hundred and fifty two your I was in fact married to Eugene Plummer McCarthy then representing himself to be a Bachelor at St James church in the parish of Islington in the county of Middlesex England.

Second.  That I have since been informed and believe that at such time the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy had a lawful wife then living and that she is still living.

Third.  That no collusion or connivance exists between myself and the said Eugene Plummer McCarthy.

Sworn in Her Majesty’s

Court for Divorce & Matrimonial

Causes at Westminster Hall

this 20th day of May 1858

Emily Verling Petition for divorce 1858

In Her Majesty’s Court of Divorce & Matrimonial Causes

Verling falsely called McCarthy




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


  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

And your Petitioner will ever pray so.

O’Bryen v. Giddy November 1862.

The Times, November 6, 1862

Bail Court

(Sittings at Nisi Prius [to determine the facts] before Mr Justice Crompton and a Common Jury.)


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.

Eugene Macarthy, second indictment for bigamy – 24 July 1862

Dublin Evening Mail – Thursday 24 July 1862


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.

Eugene Macarthy, committed for trial at Bow Street, August 1862

The Times, Tuesday, August 26, 1862.

POLICE (Courts)

Bow Street Magistrates Court

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.

Eugene Macarthy, third indictment for bigamy – 30 July 1862

The Times, Wednesday, July 30, 1862

Westminster Police Court-

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 Schultz  was 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.

Eugene Macarthy – First indictment for bigamy July 1862

The Cork Examiner, 17 July 1862


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 McCarthy – Bigamy conviction. Old Bailey 1862

Eugene Plummer Macarthy’s conviction for bigamy at the Old Bailey is very brief

THIRD COURT.—Friday, August 22nd, 1862.


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.



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


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.

Bigamy, Theft, and the O’Bryens. 1862

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 the British 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. It  seemed 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.

The prisoner was then removed to the cell.

The Times, September 3, 1862. p. 9