The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-05-11 00:00:00

" CRESSWELL v. CROWDY."

Li t'aa Court of Queen's Bench, last week, before the Lerl
Chief Justice, Mr. Justioe Blackburn, Mr. Justice Lush, anti
Mr. Justice Qualu, the ab re cause was heard, and was
an action by a nephew ago( at his aunt, on an agree-
ment to pay him an annuity on account of his pie-
raising not to marry a cur sin lady The declaration set
forth that in laqS the aunt, from her care and affection for Ite r
nephew, who was 23 years of age, conditionally OD hi, not
lamming a ce,tain young lady, a widow with three children,
horn he had lately root on bard ship on a voyage from the
Cape of Good ha e, agree r if he shoal,. continue unmarried
to the young lady to allow him £3OO a year durl..g his life.
For some reason or other, however, the defendant had inter-
mitted he, payme tr, anti in 3571 this era ti was brought to
!Tower some arrears. The aunt demurred an the Erouud
that the co, tenet was not legally valid.Mr ,
Manisty, QC., and 31r. Wool w ere for the
plaintiff, the nephew ; Mr. BrOWII, Q.C., and lir. F. M.
White erre for tne defendant, the soot.
Mr. Brown urged that there was no legal coroidera-

tion.
The Lon l Chief Justice : Oh, yes, there was; the
nephew agreed to forego his natural freedom (,f mar-
riage, and to give up the young lady he was attached

Mr. Brown: Perhaps she would not have hal him.
Mr. Justice Blackburn : Never mind, he agreed not
to ask her. (I.aughter.)
Mr. Brown : Perhaps he had asked her and she had
refused him already.
Mr. Justice Blackburn: In most cases I have heard
of the lady refuted in the first instance. (Much
laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice: The aunt appears to have
ha l such a persuasion that the lady would have him
t'do thought it necessary to bind him not to pro-
p°, to her.
Mr. lirdwn : Ought such a contract to he enforced ?
The Lord Chief Justice: Why not? Aunts should
not enter into such agreements if they don't intend
to keep them. (Laughter.)
Mr. Brown: It is ,xtutrary to public policy, as it is
in restraint of marriage.
Mr. Justice Blackburn: Marriage with a particular
lady, that is all; not re.traint of marriage generally.
There are scores of cases in which obligations not to
marry particular persons are valid .° Nay, there is a
very had case in which the stipulation was not to marry
any Scotclaman (much laughter), yet it was held valid,

though it was strongly urged that it was likely to
raise ill blood between the two countries. (Great
laughter.) It is not a restraint of marriage generally.
Mr. Brown : Yes, my lord ; but if the aunt won't
let him marry the only lady he loves, the probability is
that he will not marry at all. (Thigh laughter.)
• • •

Mr. Justice Blackburn: Oh, that is too romantic,
Mr. Brown. Laughter.)
Mr. Brown: My lord, this lady is a widow.
The Lord Chief Justice: What of that? He may
be very fond of her. (Laughter.)
Mr. Brown , She has three children. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice : What then? He may be
so fond of her that he may not care about that.
(Laughter.)
Mr. JuAice Quain.—Or he may be BO fond of children
that he may really prefer it. (I aughter.)
Mr. Brown went into the ca-es to show that con-
tracts against mar, loge weir invalid; but
Mr. Justice Blackburn challenged him to cite one in
which it was held that a contract not to marry a par-
ticular person was invalid, and no such case was cited,
the learned Judge asserting that there were many
cases to the contrary. . . .

Mr. Brown, however. still urged that the natural
effect of preventing a young man from marrying the
only woman he cared about was to deter him from
marrying at all, and this the law deemed mischievous.
Mr. Justice Blackburn again asked for an authority
in point, and it was admitted there was none,
Mr. Justice Lush : It is a common thing to leave a
provision in a will for a widow on ccndition of her not
re-marrying.
The Court, without calling upon the counsel for the
plaintiff, pronounced judgment in his favour. There
was nothing, they said, in the agreement in restraint of
marriage generally, and, therefore, there was nothing
in it which made it illegal or invalid. No doubt a
general contract not to marry at all would be invalid,
but this was quite different. Judgment for the