Ross House, Mountnugent, County Cavan, Ireland (not in County Meath, as stated in the news report below), where army officer and huntsman James Somerville lived with Mary Anne Clarke and their children. It is now an equestrian centre – something of which Captain Somerville would surely have approved!
From the Drogheda Conservative, 17 June 1905:
“MEATH MARRIAGE MYSTERY
CAVALRY OFFICER’S ROMANCE
In the Land Judge’s Court on Thursday, before Mr. Justice Ross, the matter of the estate of James Somerville was again listed for the receiving of further evidence in regard to the question of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the children of the late owner, Captain James Somerville of Ross House County Meath. Captain Somerville, who had been in the Inniskilling Dragoons, on leaving the army in 1847, came from England to reside at Ross House. He brought with him a lady who lived in the house as his wife, but six years after the youngest child was born the pair went through the ceremony of marriage in Killeagh Church, the ceremony being performed by the rector, the Rev Mr. Battersby. As a result of sales under the Land Purchase Acts, there is about 2000 pounds to the credit of the matter. The present proceedings were raised on an application by James Somerville, of Oldcastle, the eldest surviving son of the late owner, to have his name inserted in the title as the heir.
Mr. Samuels, KC, and Mr. Jonathan Pim (instructed by Mr. TL Overend) appeared for the parties having carriage.
Mr. McGinty (instructed by Messrs. Hayes & Son) appeared for the children of Captain Somerville.
Mr. Charles Brady (instructed by Messrs. Webb, Scott and Seymour) appeared for the Cruise interest.
Mr. Longfield (instructed by Messrs. Webb, Scott and Seymour) appeared for Mrs. Kearney.
Mr. Brady said that upon the new pieces of evidence they had elicited was the census of 1851, containing a return of the people in Ross House, on Sunday, 18th March, 1851. In that there was no mention of his wife.
Mr. Justice Ross – There is a Mary Anne Clarke.
Mr. Brady – That is one of the children, and she is described as of six years of age, a visitor, and born in York.
Mr. McGusty put in the certificate of the baptism of Louisa Somerville, one of the children in the parish church of St Mary’s, in Dublin, in 1848. The child was there described as ‘daughter of James and Mary Anne Somerville, 16 Palmerston Place,’ and the trade and profession were described as ‘officer on half pay.’
Philip Gaffney, aged 68, a native of the district in which Ross House is situated, was then cross-examined on his affidavit. He said he was born two years after ‘the Big Wind,’ and he was employed as gardener and otherwise at Ross House. A number of residents in the district used to visit at Ross House, and there used to be fishing parties at Lough Sheelan, which it adjoined, and picnics on an island on the lake. Mr. Anthony O’Reilly and Mrs. O’Reilly used to be on those picnic parties with Captain Somerville and the lady who passed as his wife. Captain Somerville had a horse that he used to hunt with the Meath Hounds six days a week.
Mr. Justice Ross – There are no such horses now.
Witness – There was not another in the country of the same blood as him. Witness further stated that he took Mrs. Somerville to be a lady, anyone who saw the attention Captain Somerville gave to her could not form any other conclusion.
Philip Clarke, an old inhabitant of the district, who had made an affidavit in support of the legitimacy, was also cross-examined. He stated that on one occasion when Captain Somerville was walking with him, he told him that his son James would be owner of all his property some day, and perhaps he would be Lord Athlumley.
James Skelly stated that he had eloped with Louisa, one of the daughters of Captain Somerville, and went to Connecticut. The family was utterly opposed to the marriage. After some years he returned, and his wife was now dead. On one occasion Captain Somerville, just before his death, told him that his children had been wrongly represented as illegitimate in the lunacy proceedings, and that witness’s children would be entitled to their mother’s share of the property.
This closed Mr. McGusty’s case.
Mr. Samuels, KC, said he intended to produce Mr. Skeffington Thompson, a first cousin of James Somerville, who made an affidavit. In the affidavit he said that he remembered meeting Capt. Somerville in 1856, and Mary Anne Clarke was then with him. Until the present application he never heard it suggested that he was his wife until the present proceedings were brought. On one occasion, after the marriage in 1861, deponent asked Captain Somerville, ‘Why did you not marry her before all the children were born?’ and he replied, ‘Mary Anne, the eldest daughter was not born in wedlock, and I would not make fish of one and flesh of the others; so I waited until all were born before making an honest woman of her.’
Cross examined by Mr. McGusty – Witness was now resident at Ross. When he visited Captain Somerville, the eldest daughter always dined at the dinner table with the family, and all the children passed by the name of Somerville. The woman who passed by the name of Mrs. Somerville was also in the room with the others, but when witness’s sister went there on a visit, she told witness that the woman who went by the name of Mrs. Somerville had to sit in the kitchen.
And did you believe that? – I did quite believe it.
Further cross-examined witness said that his father was paid 32 pounds a quarter for the six months that Captain Somerville was placed under his care after the lunacy proceedings. Witness slept in the same room with him, and he had a pleasant time as far as witness could make it for him.
To Mr. Justice Ross – Unless he had taken drink Captain Somerville’s conversation was usually rational, but occasionally, when he had not taken drink, he would make a queer remark.
Give me an example. – At the time Lord Leitrim was shot he said ‘My God! Leitrim is shot, and he should have been shot twenty years ago.’ Lord Leitrim and Captain Somerville were, witness believed, in the same regiment at one time – the Carabiniers.
Mr. McGusty – Did you not think that a cruel thing to say – that he would not make an honest woman of her until all the children were born?
-It would be cruel to the children.
-And not to her? – No; I would not say it would be cruel to her, as she was a copartner.
Mr. Justice Ross – Do you think it a rational thing to say? – I think it was fairly rational. I dare say that is what I might say myself, though, perhaps, you might not think me rational. (Laughter.)
Mr. Samuels read other affidavits in support of his case; but Mr. McGusty said he did not consider it necessary to cross-examine the deponents, so they were not called as witnesses.
Counsel were then heard on each side.
Judgment was reserved.”
The Liverpool Weekly Courier of 17 June 1905 described James, the son who was making the application, as a ‘workhouse inmate.’
Mr. Justice Ross delivered his judgment the following month, in which he found against James’s legitimacy claim. In his judgment he noted that Captain James Somerville was the son of James Somerville, of Ross House, whose family was a distinguished one, he himself being nearly related to the first Lord Athlumney, once Chief Secretary for Ireland. Captain James Somerville was in the army, first in the 6th Dragoon Guards or Carabineers, and then in the 11th Light Dragoons, and he was in Scotland between 1842 and 1844. About that time, he probably became acquainted with the young woman named Maryanne Clarke, daughter of a Serjeant-Major.
A child was born in 1844 in Yorkshire, and on the birth certificate the mother was described as ‘Maryanne Clarke.’ Had there been any kind of a regular marriage before then, one would naturally have expected that the young mother would have used her married name in signing the document.
Although Captain Somerville paid the lady in question great attention, and she was always treated with respect by the servants and spoken of as Mrs. Somerville, it appeared that the Rector of Killeagh, the Rev Robert Battersby, was aware of the real relationship that existed between the pair, as he solemnised a regular marriage between them on the 2nd September 1861. The entry in the parish registry described the parties as James Somerville, bachelor and Maryanne Clarke, spinster.
As regards the baptismal certificates of the children, as regards those born in Dublin, the mother’s name was given as Somerville, whereas in the case of the youngest, baptized at Killeagh Church, the mother’s name was given as Maryanne Clarke, inferring that the Rector knew the facts, and it was he who brought the marriage of 1861.
In addition, in the census return of 1851, James Somerville returned his daughter Maryanne as ‘Maryanne Clarke’ and classed her as a ‘visitor’ in his house, and after his own name he wrote, ‘not married’. The mother did not sleep in the house in question, so she was not included in the return. In the case of persons living together under such circumstances as the witnesses described, a strong presumption in favour of marriage arose.
However, that presumption was capable of being rebutted, and he was of opinion that, coming in addition to the evidence of the baptismal certificate and the census return, the wholly unexplained marriage of 1861, after all the children were born, shattered the presumption to its foundation. Therefore, sorely against his inclination, he had been driven to the conclusion that the illegitimacy of the children had been. completely proved. The property of James Somerville, who had died intestate, could not go to his children, some of whom were in extreme poverty, it must go to his legitimate relatives. The costs should be paid out of the estate.
Before 1986, the question of whether there had been a valid marriage between a claimant’s parents was a key feature of succession law disputes. There was a presumption that if two people had lived together, and been treated by others as married, they would be assumed to be married for the purpose of succession law, but this presumption could be rebutted by evidence to the contrary, such as the celebration of a formal marriage between them subsequently. Since the enactment of the Status of Children Act 1986, non-marital children are treated in the same way as children born within marriage from point of view of succession law rights, meaning that this decision would not be repeated today.
Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel reply