Prerogative Court, Monday...
The pleadings in this curious case were very numerous. Dr. SWAUEi- briefly stated their substance. Frances Elizabeth Gordon, the party deceased,and in respect of whose estate thins cause origzinated, was, luring her life-time, considered to be the lawful wife of Thomas Gordon, party in the SUit. She left a sister, Anna Susanna Lawes, (since married to T. Wilkinson), the other party to the suit, and only next of kin to the deceased. Mrs. Wilkinson now denied that her sister had at any time been the lawful wife of' Gordon; and, at her prayer, a decree had issued,. calling upon; him to come in and show cause vhy'administrasLon to the goods, chattels, and effects, of the late Frances Lawes, as having died a, spinster and intestate, should not be granited to herself as sister and only next of kin. On the part of Mr. Gordon, a proctor had ap peared, alleging him to have been the lawful ihusband of the de. ceased. The first of the allegations bofore the Court pleadetl the marriage of Gordon with the deceased in September, 1818, at the church of St. 8llarylebone; and an exhibit annexed, viz. the marriage certificate duly extracted from the register of mar. riages at the church in question, anti alleged to be in all re- spects correct, excepting onlv that he was therein, through error, described as a bachelor insteat of a widower. The first al- legation propounded on behalf of 5Jrs. WVilkinson set forth that sn the month of April or iMay, 1808, Thomas Gordon, being then a bachelor, married a woman of the name of Harriet Cole, at the parish church of Woolwich; and in supply of proof pleaded an entry of such marriage in the books of that parigh, and the cohabi- uttion of the parties together; that at the time of his marriage with Frances Elizabeth Ia,wes, the party deceased, he was not abachelor, nor a vidower, but a married man; for tIp to that period his lawful wife, formerly Harriet Cole, had been seen, and in the month of July following had been recognized in the streets of Chatham ; that (Gordon had subsequently acknowledged to divers persons that his first wife, the said Harriet, was stil alive; that at the Old Bailey sessions in London of 1820, a bill of indictment for bigamy having been found aeainst Gordon, he was tried for the same, found guilty, and sentenced to seven years, transportation; that at the date of tlis, allegation he was still a prisonerunder such sentence; and that in fur. thersupply of proof therecorl of his conviction was nowexhibitecl and brought in.It further pleaded thatFranceeLawes,falselv calledGoidon, died aspinsterand intestate,leaving theparty,iMlrs.Wiaklason,heronly next of kin. The next allegation was a responsive one, brought ih on behalf of Alr. Gordon, in Easter Term, 1821. He alleged that shortly after his marriage with Cole, she turnedout a most abandon- ed character, ran away from hiam, and lived in a state of open and notorious prostitiiion; that being a gutnner in his Mlajesty s navy, he left this country on service, but returned in about sim years aftee,. wards to England. This was in 1815, and in the interval she had taken upon herself the Hame of White, under which appellation shd was admitted into St. Thomas's Hospital where she died,as wss ap- parent from certain entties in the books ofthat hospital, now exhibit. ed, long before his second marriage; that notwithstanding the pre- mises, M,lrs. Vilkinson hadcausedhim to be indicted at the Old Bailey for bigamny; and peniding the trial, by handbills and advc, tisements offered a reward of 30 puineas to any person who cdl prove that Harriet Cole was alive in ml as', 1818; thatupon tist ia. dictment he had been in,deed found guilty and sentenced; btt that in consequence of favourable circumstances connected with his case his .llajesty had been graciously pleased to extend to hh1s his royaX nardol ;-that after his marriage with the late Frances Gordon, Mrs, XVilkinson one dav told her in a taunting manner that she was not thp lawful wife of him, Gordon; and that the said Frances, anxious thiti the event of her death Gordon should at all events have the benefit of her property, executed her will, dated 9th of June, 1819, by which she left all her property, real and personal, to him, by the name of Iher dear husband," and appointing him sole and universal legatee - that she also executed another will, and influenced by the same rts tives, by which she made a similar disposition of her property to him, under the name of " her dear and respected friend." thep next allegation was prspounded by AMrs. Wilkinson, and set fortb, that soon after the marriage of her late sister with Gordon, she be, came subject to fits, and had an attack ofparalysis; that her health, spirits, and intellects became infirm; and that she was treated with great cruelty by Gordon, and was at no time subsequently, or at least was not at the date of cither ofthe two wills, of a sound and dispos. ingnmind. There were twoother allegations, but tbey were exceptive merely tothe credit of particular witnesses, except that on the part of Alrs. Wilkinson it was endeavoured to be shown, that the wo- iman admitted into St. Thomas's was not Harriet Gordon, formerly Cole, but a woman who had lived at Sheerness and other places, with sailors, and was known bv the name of " Lady Rodney. Dr. S',vAnEY, having opened these pleadings, said, he shoulde pray the Court, when the case came to be argued, to pronounce for the validity of the will, and of the marriage w ith Frances Elizabeth Rawes, the party deceased; and should submit that probate ought to be granted to Mlr. Gordon; and that Mlrs. Wilkinson abould be contlemned in the whole coats of these voluminous proceedings. Dr. LUSuIINGTO9, whoappeared for Mrs. Wllkinson, express. ed his intention of relying principally on the record of a conviction "br bigamy against AMr. Gordon, exhibited in this causo. There was avast body of authorities to provc that the record of s conviction in a criminal Court must rule the proceedings of a civil one; and if so, it would be impossible for MIr. Gordon to show that he was the lawful husband of the deceased, or entitled to probate. Sir JoIIN NICHOLL had some doubts how far the record could avail against the Royal pardon. The case stands o;'er to be argued. PREROGATIVE COURT. MlovnrAv-Af- 1n WVILKINXSOX (FORfMERLY LAWEES) V. fn.-