I first became interested in the Heaths when I found a newspaper transcript relating to the case of Stanley v Heath on a genealogy newsgroup. I found out a bit more about the case of Heath v Heath and found it interesting in that the ecclesiastical courts were involved at a time when jurisdiction was being to be moved from the church to the state. The information in this article is drawn mainly from Irish newspaper articles available on an online database
Francis Wilson Heath was born on 20th January 1808, in Lambeth, Surrey the son of Richard and Ann Heath. In August 1836 Francis Wilson Heath he was married to Caroline Abigail Archdall Cope in Loughgall by the Dean of Armagh, James Edward Jackson. Miss Cope was the daughter of Arthur Walter Cope and his wife Caroline nee Lester.
This suit was heard by the Consistorial Court, Armagh on Monday, 28th July 1845. Francis Wilson Heath sought a judgement for the restitution of conjugal rights against his wife Caroline Arabella Archdall Heath nee Cope. At that time matters relating to marriage could be heard by the ecclesiastic courts.
Interest in the case and subsequent appeal to the Court of Delegates was high as can be judged by the entries in newspapers before the case and in the coverage of the case across Ireland by newspapers in Armagh, Belfast, Coleraine, Cork, Dublin, Enniskillen, Omagh, Tipperary and Tyrone.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURT – This long protracted case of Heath v. Heath, which has excited considerable interest, is expected to come on for hearing, at the Court-house, Armagh, about the 16th or 17th instant. We understand that Sir Henry Meredyth is the advocate retained by Mr. Heath, and Doctor Gayer and another by Mrs. Cope.
There was a related case earlier in the year at the Spring Sessions when John Stanley brought a case against Francis Wilson Heath for “having abstracted and stolen from the office of Mr. Stanley, in Armagh, in his absence, on Wednesday, the 19th February last, certain letters and copies of letters, the property of complainant, Mr. Stanley.” These letters related to the case of Heath v Heath. The case opened to a packed a packed court house on Thursday, 13th March at 12:00 pm and lasted close to five hours at which point the magistrates decided that they would receive informations1. The case was due to resume on Saturday, 5th April when Mr. Heath handed in a writ of certiorari which meant the case had be moved to a higher court. The case came before Judge Perrin in the Record Court on Tuesday, 15th July. After a special jury was sworn in the case opened with Mr. Moore, Q.C. for Mr. Heath stating the Mr. Heath was accused of feloniously stealing letters and copies of letters to which he pleaded not guilty. Mr. Nelson, Q.C. then stated the case for Mr. Stanley, first by giving some background to the Heath v Heath case, then to describe the cordial relationship between Mr. Heath and Mr. Stanley prior to the instigation of the Heath v Heath case, the evidence of William Quinn, Mr. Stanley’s clerk who found Mr. Heath in Mr. Stanley’s office with a bundle of papers relating to the Heath v Heath case when he knew that Mr. Stanley would be absent. The evidence of Captain Rogers who had seen the letters in Mr. Heath’s possession and had discussed them with him. The letters produced in court related to correspondence between Mr. Stanley and Mr. Collins, an attorney in Belfast relating to the knowledge and reliability of the witnesses to Mr. Heath’s infidelity with an unknown woman.
In the course of the trial it emerged that various differences arose between the couple and on one occasion Mr. Heath was bound over to keep the peace. In December 1843 the marriage broke down completely and they lived separately, the separation was agreed and formalized in a deed of separation on 22nd April 1844. In August of that year, Mr. Heath changed his mind an instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the Consistorial Court of Armagh. On the 18th February while this suit was quite advanced Mr. Stanley filed additional papers relating to Mr. Heath’s infidelity. On the 19th February Mr. Heath visited Mr. Stanley’s office and established that Mr. Stanley was away and would not return until late evening he then left but returned about an hour later when Mr. Quin found him in Mr. Stanley’s office
Judge Perrin then asked if the case can be sustained as a felony. The arguments continued on both sides. The Judge then commented that the conduct of the defendant was very reprehensible and improper; no doubt he was guilty of a crime of another description, and if the indictment was framed for a mere misdemeanor he must have been convicted.
Judge Perrin did not allow the case to go further and instructed the jury as follows:
“Gentlemen of the jury, in this case as I have observed, the conduct of the defendant was extremely reprehensible. But if you believe he had no intention of keeping or destroying the papers in question; or if they were taken for a mistaken or improper purpose, it is not such a taking as will sustain the indictment and you will find a verdict of not guilty. But I think it right, in conclusion, to add that Mr. Stanley gave his evidence with perfect candour, and the letters must be given back to him.”
Armagh Guardian, 22nd July 1845.
In this same paper the date for the case of Heath v Heath was confirmed as commencing on Monday, 28th July 1845.
Heath v. Heath
The following report of the trial is drawn largely from the Armagh Gazette of 4th August 1845. The Vicar-General, the Reverend Doctor George Miller opened proceedings shortly after 11:00 a.m. Sir Henry Meredyth on behalf of Mr. Heath, opened the arguments by detailing the causes put forward by the friends of Mrs. Heath as to the reasons for their separation. He cast doubt on the witnesses, the grounds for cruelty, and completely refuted there was a case to answer for adultery. Dr. Gayer on behalf of Mrs. Heath made a lengthy reply dealing with the causes of the separation, the legal position as he saw it, the decision of other ecclesiastical and consistorial courts, some biblical quotes to support his position. There then followed the depositions of the witnesses.
There were four witnesses to the charge of cruelty, Mr. and Mrs. Cope, Miss Anne Barry, an assistant cook and Miss. Margaret Clarke, a lady’s maid. Mrs. Cope’s deposition stated that in her presence she had observed Mr. Heath winking at the housekeeper Mrs. Keating, and had made use of gross language which amounted to cursing her. The Gazette judged the language to be
“of too gross a nature to appear in a journal like the Armagh Gazette which although delighting in a sporting character, could not, nor would not, descend to wound and vitiate the moral sentiment and feelings of the juvenile portion of the highly respectable class of the community throughout which our journal so largely circulates.”
This did not stop the paper printing a few lines later the following as the deposition of Miss Anne Barry that she had heard Mr. Heath say about Mrs. Cope
D____ her soul to h____, and you, as a sneaking little b____.
In her deposition Miss. Margaret Clarke swore that she frequently heard the housekeeper Mrs. Keating laughing and talking to Mr. Heath in a familiar manner in various rooms in the house. She also stated that Mr. Heath was in the habit of absenting himself after dinner and going to his smoking room to enjoy a cigar and that she had heard Mr. Heath curse or damn some person in the bedroom when only he and Mrs. Heath were in the room
Mr. Moore, then spoke on behalf of Mrs. Heath describing in detail of the neglect Mrs. Heath had suffered and the effects it had on her health and spirits. He also talked of the binding nature of the Deed of Separation that the pair had entered into. He concluded by appealing to the court not to send this amiable woman back to the bed of a character whom she abhorred and despised.
Sir Henry Meredyth in reply dismissed the evidence of the assistant cook (who he referred to as a kitchen maid) and lady’s maid as being unreliable as they tend to sympathize with their people of their own sex. He went on to describe Mrs. Heath’s causes as childish. Mr. Heath was a naughty man who would retire to his own room to smoke cigars after dinner; this Sir Henry described as the act of a gentleman, who would never attempt to smoke in the presence of a lady. He went about unshaven, Sir Henry described as a woeful crime, of which most of the dragoons of our army were guilty every day and were not a whit less admirable in the eyes of the ladies. As regards adultery he dismissed the evidence of Mr. Patrick Best and Mr. Hugh Boyle as being worthy of being believed on their oath recalling the evidence of eleven respectable people who knew of them. The evidence of adultery by Best and Boyle was not recorded by the Gazette although it did emerge in a subsequent trial.
He then called on the court to
“make such an award as would compel this contumacious lady to return to the home of a husband, who proved by the institution of these proceedings that he still clearly loved her.”
The court was then adjourned until Tuesday, 12th August, when judgement in the case would be delivered. Both the Belfast Commercial Chronicle of 16th August 1845 and the Armagh Guardian of 19th August 1845 give more detailed accounts of the judgement than the Armagh Gazette of 18th August 1845.
The Armagh Guardian devoted more than three columns to the judgement, the bulk of the first two columns dealt with the civil and religious arguments put forward, while the remainder dealt with the evidence put forward and the judgement itself. With regard to the evidence put before him the Reverend Doctor Miller said that Mr. Heath and Mrs. Heath were married in August 1836 and lived in harmony for at least five years, following this the conduct of Mr. Heath appears to have changed becoming coarsely negligent of his person, and wholly estranged from his wife. The first loss of temper by Mr. Heath was exhibited in his cursing not Mrs. Heath but her mother when visiting in September 1842. This outrageous conduct was repeated in a later visit in October 1843, at which point Mrs. Heath considered separating from her husband which she carried out at Christmas 1843 when visiting her parents she refused to return home. On 22nd April 1844 a deed of separation was executed between the parties and about three months later Mr. Heath instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. In order to resist this suit Mrs. Heath brought accusations of adultery and cruelty against him.
On the charge of adultery the main focus is Mrs. Mary Keating, the cook. Here we find three witnesses to undue familiarity between her and Mr. Heath, and while they prove an unbecoming familiarity in the behavior of Mr. Heath they are insufficient to prove adultery between the parties. Subsequently Mrs. Keating was dismissed by Mr. Heath probably on his learning that his wife was uneasy about their relationship. There was no record of any subsequent meetings between Mr. Heath and Mrs. Keating, and she did not appear pregnant when discharged from service.
As the evidence in relation to Mrs. Keating was considered inadequate a further distinct charge was put forward. Mr. Hugh Boyle gave evidence that he saw Mr. Heath go into a house of ill-fame in Belfast. However his credibility as a witness was discredited and the charge of adultery was dismissed as not supported by any proof.
As regards the charge of cruelty, the cruelty to be proved in this case must be cruelty endangering life as this is the only grounds for the separation of married persons. While the marriage was a source of discomfort to both there was nothing that could be described as legal cruelty.
The Reverend Doctor Miller found in favour of Mr. Heath and concluded his judgement with the following remarks:
“And we do pronounce, decree, and declare the said Francis Wilson Heath and Caroline Arabella Archdall Heath to be lawful husband and wife; and we do by this our definitive sentence or final decree which we read and promulge by these presents – decree the said Caroline Arabella Archdall Heath to be admonished, and by these presents do admonish her to render conjugal rights to the said Francis Wilson Heath, her husband, and to demean herself towards him with such affection as she ought to treat her husband, justice so requiring.”
The judgement was appealed.
Punch in Ulster took a more light-hearted view of the trial reporting it with the following appearing in the Armagh Gazette of 18th August 1845:
In a recent trial at Armagh, in the Ecclesiastical Court, before the Vicar-General, Doctor Miller, there were sundry depositions as to “winking” and “smoking” brought forward against the promovent2, in that cause “With nods and winks and wreathed smiles,” sings the poet, and smoke is also poetically represented as ascending in wreaths! Thus far, “winking” or “smoking,” “like winking” are akin, and whosoever happened to witness the Heath upon a mountain set on fire, well knows that when a fire gets to a head on the Heath, it is difficult to Cope with it, and it must burn out, which, by the way, proves that it is not “better to marry than burn” in all cases, and the shee-root, in this one, should have winked at the smoke, and tried the “Ex fumo dare lucem” process, which means, to “make light of the smoke!” and Shakespeare says –
“You saw my masters wink and laugh upon you.”
The Judge also appears to have adopted the motto before alluded to, as to the smoke – and further, to have borrowed another one from Shakespeare as to the “winking” –
“And in the winking of authority to understand the law.”
By the way, his Honour quotes a number of “authorities” which will be, most likely, in future, cited under the name of that popular drama called “The Miller and his Men.”
The next case to come before the courts was Francis Wilson Heath v William Algeo and John Stanley, trustees of Mrs. Caroline Heath. This came before the Rolls Court in Dublin on Wednesday, 3rd December 1845. This was an injunction to prevent the defendants who were the trustees of a deed of separation from proceeding with an action in the Court of Queen’s Bench for recovery of rent from an annuity that had been settled by deed to Mrs. Heath. The plaintiff having successfully won a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights in the Ecclesiastical Court which Mrs. Heath refused to obey and using her trustees had recovered some rents since the termination of proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court. Further, it was argued that the deed of separation should be declared null and void as it was executed by the plaintiff to avoid the serious expense of a suit for a divorce which Mrs. Heath was determined to institute if the deed was not agreed. Dr. Gayer for Mrs. Heath argued that the deed was good. However the judge ruled in favour of Mr. Heath.
Heath v Heath resumed at the High Court of Delegates on Friday, 19th December 1845. The Court met to hear a motion from Mr. Heath to dismiss Mrs. Heath’s appeal for want of prosecution. However affidavits had been lodged by Mr. Stanley two days previously for a motion to introduce new information which had arisen in the meantime. The Court ordered the argument of the admissibility of the new information would wait until the first day of next term, and Mr. Stanley should lodge the pleading of it in the meantime.
The Court met again on Saturday, 19th April 1846 it decided that the judgement of the lower court was correct, that the case was ill-appealed, and refused to entertain the new matter sought to be introduced on behalf of the wife. Dr. Gayer then applied on behalf of the wife for the order usual in such cases between husband and wife, that the husband should pay costs. The court unanimously refused the application.
Things escalated when Heath v Heath returned to the Consistorial Court on 4th July 1846 when this instance of Heath v Heath had Mrs. Heath as the plaintiff and Mr. Heath as the defendant. On 25th April 1846 Mrs. Heath brought a citation for, divorce, alimony and costs, alleging cruelty and adultery Sir Henry Meredyth argued that his client has raised a petition of res judicata, i.e. a decision had already been made regarding cruelty and adultery. Dr. Gayer for Mrs. Heath said that the object of this petition was to prevent suit, a convenient way of putting in a peremptory exception. He admitted that Mr. Heath was acquitted of previous alleged adultery with Mary Keating, the Martins and others, but was that any reason to assume he never committed adultery, it was a first principle of justice that a party claiming a right or resisting a wrong has a right to be heard. The judge Dr. Radcliffe overruled the objections made by Mr. Heath because he considered that the subject of the present suit had not been adjudicated on and consisted of a new matter. Sir Henry Meredyth said he would appeal this decision
An interesting diversion to the legal arguments appeared in the Armagh Guardian on the 8th December 1846.
To the Editor of the Armagh Guardian
Portadown, Dec. 5, 1846.
Sir, – I shall feel obliged by your inserting in your next paper the report of a trial, and the conviction of John Sloan and others at the Belfast Quarters Sessions, on Wednesday last for burglary, as it appears by the disclosure and confession of one of the prisoners (namely Magee,) and by my information which I have since received, that the convict who assumed the name John Sloan, is the identical Hugh Boyle, whose testimony against me was discredited by the Rev. and learned Vicar General (Dr. Miller) of Armagh, in the late trial of “Heath v Heath,” whose career of infamy is providentially arrested for a time – notwithstanding his treachery in the betrayal of his confederates.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Fras. W. Heath.
The report of the trial appeared on the same page in the Guardian as the letter.
However on 22nd December a response from Hugh Boyle appeared in the Guardian.
To the Editor of the Armagh Guardian,
Belfast, December 19th, 1846
Sir, – I felt much surprise on my attention being called to your paper of the 8th inst., containing a letter to you from Mr. Francis W. Heath, respecting the trial and conviction of a person of the name of John Sloan and others, at the last Belfast Quarter Sessions for burglary, in which letter Mr. Heath states that by information he had received, the convict who assumed the name of John Sloan was the identical Hugh Boyle, whose testimony was discredited by the Vicar General of Armagh, in the cause of Heath v Heath. I being the person examined in that cause, beg now to state that you have been grossly and wilfully deceived by Mr. Heath, who must have known, for reasons unnecessary here to state, that I could not have been the person convicted, but as I intend to seek legal redress for the wicked and malicious libel, I will not say more than what is at present actually necessary in justice to myself and family.. I have therefore to inform you that I have always been a resident in Ireland, and that I have never been charged with, or tried for any crime or offence whatever, and that I have lived in Belfast for the last eighteen years endeavouring to earn a livelihood for myself and family by honest industry, during which period or previously, I never was even brought before a magistrate.
Under the foregoing circumstances I trust you will do me the justice of inserting this letter in your next paper, and this I am sure you will not deny me, as I feel satisfied that you would not intentionally allow yourself to be made an instrument of injuring any person, no matter how humble his station in life might be, by publishing, through the medium of your paper, a calumny as wanton, wicked and vindictive as it is false, against me for having honestly and fearlessly come forward in the cause of Heath v Heath and borne my humble, though ineffectual testimony to the truth.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Hugh Boyle.
[We willingly insert the preceding letter, and regret having been made the medium of publishing Mr. Heath’s Communication, for which we feel very little obliged, as no influence could induce us to be knowingly accessory to calumny – Guardian]
On 29th December, the following appeared in the Armagh Guardian.
We have received another letter from Mr. Heath in reply to Hugh Boyle’s, but must decline publishing it.
On Monday, 9th February 1846 at the Court of Delegates Mrs. Heath’s appeal against the verdict of the Court on 11th July 1845 was dismissed.
A new front in the battle opened following the death of Mrs. Heath’s father Arthur Walter Cope, who died on 8th November 1846. In his will, made out on 28th August 1844, he had left to his widow, the absolute control as sole executrix and sole legatee of all the estate, real and personal of the testator. His daughter, Mrs. Heath was excluded from the will, and Mr. Heath believed that he had a case on the alleged ground of undue influence. So began Heath v. Cope.
While the case was pending adverts were placed in the newspapers by John Stanley and Francis Wilson Heath both addressed to the tenants of Drummilly Estate. John Stanley stating that tenants should not pay rent to anyone but Mrs. Caroline Cope widow of Arthur Walter Cope, who will be at Drummilly on 1st May between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. to receive rents for the following year but also any outstanding arrears.
Mr. Heath was a bit slower off the mark and stated that Arthur Walter Cope only held the estate by his father’s will for his lifetime only and on his demise the estate should pass to his sister Mrs. Anna Cope. As the agent of Mrs. Anna Cope he would collect rents on 1st August at the offices of Jacob Barrett.
Heath v Cope resumed at the Court of Delegates on Tuesday, 15th June. The Court dismissed two appeals, firstly that Mrs. Caroline A. Heath be compelled to appear for cross-examination and secondly that Mr. John Stanley should be subjected to further cross-examination. When the Court resumed the following day, Sir Henty requested a delay to allow Mr. Heath sufficient time to contact others in London. After some discussion the adjournment was granted.
This case give rise to Lessee Garland v Cope which came before the Record Court in Armagh on Saturday, 24th November 1847 and finished on the following Monday. A full report of the case can be found in Irish Law Reports 1849, Vo. XI, p 510-537.
This case was between Mrs. Anna Garland and her sister-in-law Mrs. Caroline Cope for the reasons stated above. The case centred on the validity of two wills that of Arthur Walter Cope and his grandfather, the right Reverend Doctor Walter Cope, Bishop of Ferns. The argument for Mrs. Anna Garland was that her father Nicholas Archdall Cope had left the estate to Arthur Walter Cope for his lifetime only and on his demise and if there was no male heir the estate should pass to his sister Mrs. Anna Garland. The counter argument was that Bishop Cope did not have the power to pass the estate to the husband of his niece Sarah Arabella Abigail Meade who adopted the name Cope when she and her husband Nicholas Archdall inherited the Drummilly estate.
The Court found for the plaintiff, Mrs. Anna Garland, who was the widow of Nathaniel Garland reverted to the surname Cope when she came into possession of the estate. Towards the conclusion of the trial there was comment on the role played by Mr. Heath:
“what was most singular, that Mr. Heath should be so active to shew that his lady had no title to the estate, of which he would have been tenant by courtesy.”
Cope v Heath was back in the Perogative Court, Dublin on Saturday, 27th November 1847, the Dublin Evening Packet and Correspondent of 30th November gave the most detailed coverage. Mr. Heath filed a pleading impeaching the will on the grounds that Mrs. Caroline Cope, Mr John Stanley, Mr Hugh Boyle and Mr. Patrick Best had entered into a conspiracy to deprive Mr. Heath of what he would expect to receive as the husband of the heir to the estate. Forty-six articles were submitted in support of the pleading. Among the arguments put forward were that Mrs. Cope and Mr. Stanley had conspired to extort from Mr. Cope a will in a moment of great excitement by a gross misrepresentation of Mr. Heath’s conduct, that Mr. Stanley had coerced Mr. Heath into signing a Deed of Separation, and that Mrs. Cope had conspired to separate him and his wife. The judge decided he would allow certain objections to the allegations and others refused. That certain witnesses would be examined at the hearing of the case.
Heath v Heath resumed at the Consistory Court on Tuesday, 15th February 1848 and concerned the evidence of Cecily Nelson who stated;
“During my residence in 1 Thomas Street, Belfast, I saw F. W. Heath, Esq., in said Louisa’s bed-room, and she was delivered of a child on the following day.”
It was alleged that this was false and that Edward O’Rourke an attorney in Belfast had supplied her with money to go to America for fear Mr. Heath might persecute her for perjury. It was also alleged that Edward O’Rourke was a paid agent of Mrs. Cope.
On 27th May 1848, final judgement was delivered in the case, six witnesses to Mr. Heath’s presence in Louisa Higgins’ house in Conlan Street, Belfast were cross-examined. Their evidence was judged insufficient to prove adultery, and the case for divorce as follows:
“The said Caroline Arabella Archdall Heath, otherwise Cope, the promovent, has failed in her intention deduced in her libel and do pronounce decree and declare that the said Francis Wilson Heath ought to be dismissed from further impetition of suit, and from all further observance of justice therein.”
Mr. Moore appealed the decision.
Nothing further appeared in the newspapers about the case, and there are only glimpses of the protagonists in later years.
On Wednesday, 12th July 1848, Mr. Heath is present at Drummilly for the Orange procession through the estate where the Orangemen gave three cheers for Mrs. Garland Cope. The health of the Queen was proposed by Mr. Heath and he along with Captain de Butts and Sir William Verner were given three cheers.
On Wednesday, 6th June 1849, Mrs. Anna Garland Cope celebrated her coming into possession of the Drummilly estate with a grand party for friends and tenants. Mr. Heath was indisposed and could not attend.
On Monday 27th January 1851, Mr. Heath attends a meeting of the Tenant League in the Savings Bank, Armagh.
On Saturday, 12th November 1853, Mrs. Caroline Cope and Mrs. Heath leave Dublin for their home Mullaintaine, County Antrim.
On Wednesday, 11th January 1860, Mrs. Caroline Cope dies at 11 Lansdowne Place, Cheltenham.
In Griffith’s Valuation of 1864, Mr. Heath is recorded as lessor of land in the Parishes of Seagoe and Drumcree.
On Friday, 9th July 1869, Mr. Heath is empaneled on the Grand Jury for County Armagh.
In the 1871 census of Paddington Mr. Heath is a visitor in the house of his brother-in-law William Grisham of Warwick Villas, an attorney. Mr. Heath is described as a landed proprietor.
On Friday 11th July 1873, Mr. Heath died in Lambeth, London aged 65.
The Belfast and Province of Ulster Directory has Mrs. Heath living in Sycamore Cottage, Greencastle, Co. Antrim
On Thursday, 31st July 1879 in the Chancery Division, Dublin before the Vice-Chancellor the case of Heath v Wickham and others commenced. In this case Mrs. Heath sought to obtain the re-conveyance of lands in Mount Eccles, parish of St. George, Dublin to herself. The case gives some insight into her view of the relationship between her and Mr. Heath.
She stated that her father was for many years in delicate health, and his affairs were chiefly managed by a gentleman named Francis Wilson Heath. In 1836, at the age of 16, she was coerced into marriage by Mr. Heath as a consequence of false representations made by him that the affairs of her father were in an embarrassed state, and that he was in the power of Mr. Heath, who could ruin him unless the marriage was carried out. After the marriage Mr. Heath continued to manage the affairs of Mr. Cope, who was induced in 1839 to assign to Mr. Heath valuable property of various kinds including an interest in Mount Eccles. Mr. and Mrs. Heath did not live amicably together, she was subject to cruel and harsh treatment, and kept in fear and dread of her husband and at length in April 1844 a deed of separation was executed and they were to live apart. The Mount Eccles property was vested in Messrs. William Whitlaw Algeo and John Stanley to pay her the rents and profits during her life. In addition Mrs. Heath was to be paid an annuity of £200 charged on the Drummilly estate. She received some rents amounting to £120 but not the annuity. In July 1844, Mr. Heath sued for restitution of conjugal rights to the Ecclesiastical Court and in July 1845 it ruled that Mrs. Heath should return to her husband. That decree was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Delegates. Further litigation followed; and in November 1845, Mr. Heath filed a bill in the Court of Chancery against his wife and her trustees to have the deed of 1844 cancelled and an action brought to recover arrears of the annuity restrained, this was granted and continued during the suit. Her father died in 1846, that and the fact of the non-payment of the annuity meant she was forced to accept a proposition from her husband to pay her £700 and to defray all the costs of the litigation if she would convey to him the lands at Mount Eccles. This arrangement was carried out by a deed of 19th October 1849; but Mrs. Heath says the £700 consideration money was never paid nor is she aware if the court costs were provided as agreed.
In response the argument stated there was no proof that Mrs. Heath was in fear of her husband and had acted under duress, that the £200 annuity was only to be paid while Mr. Heath should enjoy the Drummilly estate and this passed to Mrs. Garland Cope in 1846. That the £700 consideration was paid as a receipt for it was included in the deed of 1849, and that Mrs. Heath was not financially distressed as she had the interest of a £4,000 annuity on the Drummilly estate.
The Vice-Chancellor in his judgement said there were two grounds on which the case rested, first that the deeds had been obtained by fraud and secondly that in point of law she had no power to execute the deeds. The judgement was that fraud was not proven, however it was correct that she had no power to convey the lands as she had in the deed of 1849 and therefore the lands at Mount Eccles should be restored to her.
This decision was appealed before the Lord Chancellor in the Court of Chancery on 14th January 1880 and the final judgement came on 26th April 1880 in the High Court of Justice, Dublin and it upheld the initial decision.
Mrs. Heath died on 20th April 1906.
Notes:
- Informations, the plural of information, as it applies in the legal sense of the definition of information. The formal accusation of a criminal offense made by a public official. An information is tantamount to an indictment in that it is a sworn written statement which charges that a particular individual has done some criminal act or is guilty of some criminal omission. The distinguishing characteristic between an information and an indictment is that an indictment is presented by a Grand Jury, whereas an information is presented by a duly authorized public official. The purpose of an information is to inform the accused of the charge against him, so that the accused will have an opportunity to prepare a defense.
- Promovent, in Ecclesiastical law the plaintiff or promoter of a case.