e lady, whom I shall
henceforward call the Countess Lovel, is no Countess. We think that
she is,--but it will be for you to decide whether she is or is not,
after hearing the evidence which will, no doubt, be adduced of her
marriage,--and any evidence to the contrary which other parties may
bring before you. We shall adduce no evidence to the contrary, nor
do I think it probable that we shall ask a single question to shake
that with which my learned friend opposite is no doubt prepared. In
fact, there is no reason why my learned friend and I should not sit
together, having our briefs and our evidence in common. And then, as
the singular facts of this story become clear to you,--as I trust
that I may be able to make them clear,--you will learn that there are
other interests at stake beyond those of my client and of the two
ladies who appear here as his opponents. Two statements have been
made tending to invalidate the rights of Countess Lovel,--both having
originated with one who appears to have been the basest and blackest
human being with whose iniquities my experience as a lawyer has made
me conversant. I speak of the late Earl. It was asserted by him,
almost from the date of his marriage with the lady who is now his
widow,--falsely stated, as I myself do not doubt,--that when he
married her he had a former wife living. But it is, I understand,
capable of absolute proof that he also stated that this former wife
died soon after that second marriage,--which in such event would have
been but a mock marriage. Were such the truth,--should you come to
the belief that the late Earl spoke truth in so saying,--the whole
property at issue would become the undisputed possession of my
client. The late Earl died intestate, the will which he did leave
having been already set aside by my client as having been made when
the Earl was mad. The real wife, according to this story, would
be dead. The second wife, according to this story, would be no
wife,--and no widow. The daughter, according to this story, would
be no daughter in the eye of the law,--would, at any rate, be no
heiress. The Earl would be the undisputed heir to the personal
property, as he is to the real property and to the title. But we
disbelieve this story utterly,--we intend to offer no evidence to
show that the first wife,--for there was such a wife,--was living
when the second marriage was contracted. We have no such evidence,
and believe that none such can be found.