WATSON v
WATSON.
This article first appeared in the The Times,
Wednesday, Aug 11, 1819; pg.3; Issue 10749; col C
This was an issue directed from the Court of
Chancery, and tried before Lord NORBURY and a most respectable Special
Jury.
The matter at issue between the parties hinged
entirely upon the question, whether Margaret Lee, mother of the plaintiff,
was, or was not, married to the late Mr John Watson, brother to the
defendant. A great number of witnesses were examined and cross-examined on
each side. The marriage was sworn to by the mother of the plaintiff, and
corroborated by John O’Connor and Ann Heydon, in whose house the parties
were married, by the Rev. Mr Macklin, since dead. Michael Meara proved,
that the deceased John Watson acknowledged the marriage. This was also
corroborated, in some degree, by the testimony of James Connor.
Samuel
Watson, Esq., the Rev. Mr Downing, Mrs Slater, and Edward German, were
examined, whose testimony went to show that Margaret Lee was never
recognized in any other capacity than that of a servant, though all
allowed that there was a report of a marriage with the deceased; but as
their detailed testimonies could interest but a very few of our readers,
we shall pass them over, and proceed to Lord Norbury’s charge, which was
delivered in his Lordship’s usual able and eloquent manner.
His Lordship
began by congratulating Mr Clarke (who closed the case for the plaintiff)
on the great powers of his Stentorian lungs, which he had used so
effectually as to have made himself heard, not only by every person in the
Court, but by the very passengers in the mail-coaches that went by the
window; he was highly pleased to see Mr Clarke exert himself so ably for
his client; he wished at all times to hear free and independent advocates,
and did not think that now and then a dash at the Judge and Jury (which
were the Alpha
and Omega of his speech) was at al amiss.
But
that really Mr Clarke had raised his voice to such a Hunt-ing
pitch, he had almost imagined himself in
Spafields, or
Smithfield at least. With respect to Mr Meara’s deposition about
selling tubs, he did not think his “Tale of a Tub”
could have much
weight. He begged to call the attention of the Jury to the evidence of Mrs
Salter; and notwithstanding that she had been well
salted in her
cross-examination, he would request them to contrast it with that of
Margaret Lee used to dine with Mr Watson’s servants, call him master, and
in short, instead of his having respected her as Mrs Watson, he treat her
as one of the very “Lees” of society.
His Lordship summed up the
remainder of the evidence, and concluded by congratulating the Court and
the Jury, that this trial was so nearly closed, for, from its great
length, he feared it would have become a “Watson’s Sheet Almanack,”
and detain them the whole year. The Jury remained in the entire night, and
were discharged without a verdict.
Next Page
Please report any links or images which do not open to
mjbrennan30@gmail.com
- The information contained in these
pages is provided solely for the purpose of sharing with others
researching their ancestors in Ireland.
- © 2001 Ireland Genealogy Projects,
IGP TM By Pre-emptive Copyright - All rights reserved
TOP OF PAGE