Consistory Court, Monday,...
On a former occasion we stated the facta of this cast so filly, that it may be sufilcient 2tpreaent to re cat only, that this was a snte of nullityiof lnariagre by reason ofrunue publication of bans, and prwmofed byDf F. I gagrinst the mlany-tited ladyin autstien. It is a cuvrousfeturi Lm this suit, that it is baugit 1!im tbe,old *Isnrage aet of Geore IT., notwithstanding the subsequsat elact 2smnt ofthe2 ,ad. TV4 g erg~al knowfn as the "New llariage Act" Te fact is, tht the laettr tetatute does not enpeal that part ofthcfotcrmwhich regards the disabilities ead pen3lties accruing upon-Pretended marriages by bauzs, wbere there shal be aifalse or uandue publication of the names of onie or both of the parties, thota&h it almost Cmtirely relievecs such disabiliftle in respect of martag by *ence. Thepresent question arose out of such a state of dircum. ttances as is contemplated and provided for by the part (in questibO) of thlD a,ct, "forthe better prevention of clandestine miarriages;" ..ir. ra7gg ,vlng, on the 3d of June, i822, married the lady who is thepary i ths ~as uner he ameof"Farrington," ber real ame brtying t rgcause, wthile her namnee?ofrepute, or that by which se was known among her acquaintances,i friends, or relations, was Sir CRXSTOp'HEU RoaMlsOA2, on the opening of the Court to- 4ay7 proceeded to give sentence of nullity as prayed on behalf of the i usDand. Astotkeob,jionwhicbh on atormnerday,hadbeentaken breoan ,thatinsteadof producirg the inarriage-certificate in this dse,andthe church books the clergyman whocelebrated the-starriage ought bimelt to have beeni xarained by the other party; the Court found, upon reference, that though this had occasionally been the line of proceedin adopted, it was by no means an invariable course. n 'urleg and Stevens,"in 1786, theclergymata was so examined; ,nd in " apes and Keith" (in the Consistory Court of Rochester, 1801), both the clergyman and the clerk who celebrated the maniage were witnesses. But in; Franklin and Niclholson," which was tried in 1905, and in " filather v. Mather" in 1807, neither clerk nor mi- nister was so examined, although in all these cases there was a varietY of names, and a question as to the validity of publicatittn. Under all the circumxstances of the present case, the Court felt that the law left It no option but to decee the mnarriage to have been null and void. MONTAGUE AND 3EGsJTAGUE. Thin was a suit of separation and divorce by reason of adultery, promoted by Mrs. Dlontague, against her husband, George Non- r. ADAXS mnoved the Cou7t to decree a citation, calling upon certain patties, the sisters of hMr. Ilorntague, to come in and see pro- edinga. It was possible they might become parties interested under the folloning circumstances --In 1803, Mrs% Montague, for vhom tfie learned counsel appeared, married this gentleman at Gretns.green ; of this marrige tbere were three children; and as it ad bren celebrated waithout the limnita of this part of the United Kingdom, it was just probable that Mr. tontague, who atpresent w as assgned to answer to helibel broughti on the lady's part, might feel dposed in the outset of his defence to dispute the validity of this-marriage; and supposing for a moment that he should sue- ceed in his plea, other consequences, beEides the illegitimaticn of the children, must ensue, that made it very requisite for the Court to grant the decree pmyed for in this stage of the cause, in order that sO mnaterial a question, In a cause of divorce by reason of adultery, .a the vaUdity of the marriage mlght at once be settled. Mlr. MAon tague was in possesion of a large landed estate; his interest in S7ich arose out of the will of his grandfatber under limitations of thfa 4rt--to ASMr -Montague for h-,s life, withl remainder to bis Issue muale; but there was some power of disposal, also, to a certain ex- tent, by will reserved to him . and failing his issue imale, the pro- Srnythen to devolve on his sisters and their issue. Now Mr. out.' a had two sistewr; and while, on the one band, it migIt be very ratrial to the inurests of thewivhe, that in apossiblecase such as counme had suggested, they should be cited to see proceedings; It could not be any detriment to them, on the other, to be so cited, if they had no interest in the questio * and no interest, the learned counsel conceived, could be the only available ground of opposition to be set tip as asainst this motion. Dr. LIusrniNorTOZ followed on the same side, relying mainly on the recent case of the Mfarquis of Donegal. Dr. AitNOLD and Dr. JEN5(Et, on the part of Mfr. Alontague. contended that this application was one of a very dangerous nature. The counsel for the ladyadmitted that they could find no exact pre- cedent for such an application. The case of the M1larquis of Donegal was the only one that approached it ; and true it was, that therein the Court comprelled Allr. Arthur Chichester (the next interested in n the Donegal eitates provided the marriage between the Mlarquis and Marchioness had becan declared null and void) to come in and see pro. ceedings.B%tthat was a suitof nullityofmarriage;and there,therefore, wasbut one specfic issue between the partics-marriage or no marri- age. Here, on the contrary, the only and the specific issuse was-adal- tery or no adultery; and the question of' marriage, though a, neces- Biarv was only a preliminary one: it was not the substantive issue to be tried. In fact, the danger of such a course as the Icarned gentlemen now caOled on the Court to take was, that under pretence of trzying one certain issue, they were in fact L',deavouring to induce the Court to pronounce upon another which was not before it. Such a proceeding would lead to vast additional expenses and delay, all of awhich must be borne by mhe husband. The COVRt'r saId, it would take time to consider of this motion, before it gave an opinion upon it. CONSVSTORY COTURT. Mmmiv- . Nm'. ' rAGO V. sETUEA-NT, OTIEBRVISE LO2D, OTITSWISE 1AB. R1tGTrnw.