Arches' Court, Monday, Ju...
Dr. IlatUS1iNGTON praVedadmission of a libel in this case, wllich was one ot nullity of marriage, promotedl by Alary Anne l3urke, falsely called Bruce, against Tobias Bruce, otherwise Tobias Burke Bruce, by reason of lhis former marriage witl a wife, who, at the time ol liis anion with the Said .Mary Ann Burke, was still living. The party promotinig the suit was resident in theparish of S.Ueorge, Bloomsburv. The pretended husband wais at present a eonvict on board the hulks at Portsmouth, undler a senttence passed upon hion, somc time since, for bigamy, at the Old Bailey sessions, London. Dr. PICKARDE, who appeared f'or thc pauper (husband) in this case, conceivedt it to be his duty to oppose the admission of this libel. In a SU;! of tiis description, it was quite necessary that the facts up- on whichl the party proceeding for a sentence ofh nullity intended to rely, should be set forth as fuily and dlistinctly as possible. The learned counsel then proceeded to object at some length to the 2d andl 3d articles, as being by no means sufficiently speciric in their pleading. I tshould have been shown that both parties were Roman Ca- thlolics; tor if oneof tllellm only had been aProtestant,this marriage,as being celebratedl by a ltomnan Catholic priest, woull have been in- vali(d under the statute of James. Now, the secontl article charged " that In the months of April, Slay, and.lune, 1815, the said Tobias Burke Bruce was, or professed himiiself to be, a Roman ('atholic." IL diIi appear to him (Dr. Pickarde) that this was not the correct way of pleading stich a fact. sceing how stringent and important it was in a case of this description. If the partv was a RIoman Cathiolic by profession, surely hiis profession of that faith ought not to be liml3ited in plea to two or three months preceding the marriage, in this manner. This marriage with Alary Anne Burke teok place, it was stated, on the 12tlh of Junc, 1815; and therefore it would have been su icient for the purposes of the learned gentlemen on the other side to have shown that Bruce was a Roman Catholic at this latter period. Thic latter part of the same article pleaded that the said Tobias Burke Bruce and .\lary Anne Burke " were, on the 12th of June, 1815, lawfully joined together according to thl rites ani ceremonies oF the Rouman Catholic religion, by a priest or minister in holy orders of that church." Now, the Court had no constaC at all that such was really the case, and here was no certificate an- nexed to the process in the shape of an exhibit, to prove the mar- riage as pleaded. But the learned gentlemen on the other side coulti not contend thatsuch certificates were not given f obrin "Sted- man v. Powell," (a c.ase reportcd in Dr..JesseAtIdasns'sReports,)such a certificate was pleaded and atthouglh it turned out in that instanceto be lost, the Court fully expressed its belief on the evidence that it had been furnished. Neither the naine of' this Romihsl priest, nor the chapel in which lie officiated, were stated in this libel, although they seemned to be essential . atters in a plea of this description. 'lhe article which pleaded the subsequent marriage of the parties in Eng- land by a minister of the Established Church, at St. Mlary's, Islitig- ton, nas explicit and express upon these points, which might, with equal ease, have been sutbstantiated in respect of the marriage in Ire- land. It might be very trs,e that at the Old Bailey all this strict- ness of pleading was, perhaps, not requisite. There a mere preten- sion of a former marriage, of any sort, would suffice to found the cri- ninal prosecution, but the case was very different, thc learned counsel tipprehended, in a court of this description, having exclu- siYe jurisdiction in matters of marriage. The third article pleaded the birth and baptism of two children born during the cohabitatlon of these parties. It did seem that it might be of essential import to show when, where, in what manner, and by whom these chiil- dren were baptized, as facts that must have all of them a tendency to prove whether or no Bruce was really a Roman Catholic..; for the general effect of the evidence could hardly have failed to inifuse some doubt into) the mind of the Court upon that very material question. The Court would remember that the whole complexion and determination of this case must depend mainly en the oiiginal profession of this man as to religious faith-as to whether he 'was or was iiot a Roman Catholic. The learned counsel concluded a maiden speech of considerable ability, by apologizing for having ventured, in the discharge of his dtutv to liS client, to occupy so much of the Court's time in objecting to a plea that had been settled by such experiencedl advocates as hi3 -....... - ---s' - t;us, u?er8sine; anu uy stuomitting, in conciusion, that oii the grounds he liad stated of vague and loose pleading, espe- cially in the second and third articles, the libel was not admissible in its present state. Dr. ltuSsiwNGTow and Dr. DODSON defended the plea, whici was In entire conformity to the practice of this Court. If, however, there were any essential points oii which the Court might be of opi- nion that sufficient specification liad not been introduced, they would be very willing to reforimi tihem according to the Court's suggestion, and prayed in the meanwhile that the libel might be admitted. Sir Joitm NrCHOI.L described thie nature of this sult. The libel pleaded that these parties were mairied in Ireland, and by thie law of' that country a marriage celebrated between two persons, both being of the Roman Catholic persuasion was vaiid to all intents and pur- poses, when celebrated even by a Roinan Catholic priest. The ob- jections in this case were to the 2d and 3d articles of the libel, and they had been very properly taken. The party. on whose behalf they had been suggested, was a pauper, but he was entitled to the saine means of defence as anyother litigating party,though to nothing lurther. These objections, die Court must say, it had heard argued with great pleasure and satisfaction , taken as they had been by the learned gentleman from whom they had proceeded withi very consi- lerable clearness and ability. The learned Judge finally directed the libel to be reformed in that part which pleaded the religions pro- fession of Bruce ; other matters might be loosely pleaded; but seeing that they were such as must be entirely within his own know- ledge, (though they might not be within ithe knowledge of the party proceeding ini this case,) Ise would be no sufferer by any defect of spacificattionint trlelsplebt of them. Subject to such alteration, the ARCG1ES' COURT. AIONDAY. JuNE 28. ltURKE. FALSELY CALLETT) 33111t1. V. nlRITCY.