The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-11-25 00:00:00

A CURIOUS LAW CASE.

The cause of " thhhtut v. Parent and Another" has been
before baron Martin, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff, leave being reserved to the defendants to move to
v.e., moved and obtained a enter a nonsuit. Mr. hencaly.
Mr. Joyce now rule accordingly. Mr. Manlsty. Q t and
showed cause against the rule, and Mr. henealy, QT., and
Mr. !therm: Moir supported it.
The plaintiff was the niece of
•a man named Barelli,
and she WAN .kod IT him to nestle in his house and
take charge of his children. Ilarelli assured her that
he was a widower, and asked her to marry him, which
she did. It turned out that at the time of the marriage
1t .iii had a wife alive SARI under confinement in a
lunatic asylum. A few years after the plaintiff's mar-
riage with Itarelli his wife died, anti the plaintiff, it
was alleged, was under the belief that by reason of her
death she became lawfulwife, After Ilarelli's
death a dispute arose between the plaintiff and the
defendants, who are Barelli's son and daughter, the
ißsllc of his lawful marriage, about the plaintiffs right
to administer to their father's estate. She agremi to
waive what she deemed her right to administer, in the
defendants signing the following undertaking - -
"tn vonsideration of your abstaining from making and
forbearing to make any claim against our late father's
estate, cc hereby rmiectively undertake to pay you over
onethint part of the not value of the proceeds of the estate
up to Um till., of Ma decease.
" Joni; DOMINIC DARELLI.
MARIA MARLEY DARELLI."
The plaintiff (who sues in her maiden name) was en-
amined at the trial, and tbe learned Judge left it to the
jury to say whether they believed her story that she
hi inertly believed she had a claim to administer, and
they found affirmatively. The plaintiff's marriage was
net only null anti void on the ground that it was a
biganoms marriage, but it was a nullity, as it Caine
within the prohibited degrees of marriage under the
11th and 6th William IV., known as Lord Lyndhurst',
Act.
__ _

Manisty, Q.C., and Mr. Joyce contended that
upon the whole of the facts as they were proved at the
time, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The
plaintiff under her defect,. marriage with Barelli had
borne two children, and she was under the belief that
after the death of Mrs. Barelli her own marriage be-
came lawful, and she believed she had a right to ad-
minister in behalf of herself and her children, and the
jury found as a fact that she hail such belief. The
defendants were desirous that the history of their
father's bigamous marriage, to say nothing of the fact
that it had been contracted with his OWII niece, should
not be publicly known, and were therefore anxious to
avoil litigatioll. The plaintiff consented to forbear to
do what she clearly thought she had a right to do, upon
the dere/thuds executing an agreement to give her one
entire third of their father's estate, and that was a
good consideration for the agreement, and the learned
counsel relied on the ease of "Calisher Itisehoffsheim."
Mr. Kenealy, (IX., and Mr. Macrae Moir main-
tained that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to show
that she was in some situation to forbear, and that it
would be beneficial to her to sue. It was admitted
that under all aspects the marriage was null, and there
must lie something like a consideration to make the
agreement with the defendants valid. Forbearance
cull be no consideration, as she had no right to ad-
minkter or to sue, as she hail nothing to forbear, and
the distinction between "('slither c. Itiseholfsheim"
and the pre,crtt case was Bud in the former there was a
doubtful claim, whereas the plaintiff had no right to
sue nor to participate in the estate.
The Curt took time to consb ler judgment.