Dublin Evening Mail – Thursday 24 July 1862
ALLEGED BIGAMY AND PERJURY.
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.