The Express.
London, England, 1864-06-11 00:00:00

LAW INTBIWLIGENCE.

JUDICIAL COMMIT= ON 1111 PRIVY ODUNCIL.
The Judicial Commilas. Win litommence eating for the de-
with of budia.mhamTass June la, at
Gourmonee Dells t.Niel
C. Buteesehunder —J. M. T v. Ataarnspikeesed,
Hodge v. AttaISIMM_ GLWM#
_was—Renee Bathe.).
pithy Pw'velt . MM. if =mid, v. Jegaveera Rama
Vacationer., Deve or of Yettlegosysub —Dean and soother v.
Byrnes awl other—Blest v. News—Terr, a. /SCUM saran and
another Roehsooteste and mother v. Dept sod others—Jae!
v. Gough and other— !abysmal Royal Privileged Mahe.. Meant
Navigation Canning v. Greek art Oriental Steam Nsyvigatka
Compa.y—FalMod Lekinds Coas v. O. 8 L The tiueen—
Rajah Loll Madly? Stag V. Balm° .ag Perthad Singh—Rajah
fenteeaeltunder lay v. Merl Basessomadly Debts and other.—
Patel. BahthrliNemma Patron r, Bra Navin. Itardaras Dern
—Masa v. The Queen mid other. - renter v. Brewer and
othen-81zakeir v. Onnene of the [aria—Brisker v. Owners of
the Karla—Paayannl and others v. Call and others—Papayannl
and others v. Omen of the Marie de Brabent—Papayanni and
others v. tion of the Marie de Brabant—Great Ship Coespany
(Limited) v. Bftrpla and another—Dean and others v. Mark and
another. Passe. : Lancaster's Palest (conetruction of Sr.
ann.). to he hosed Tuesday. June 14, at hall-prat DO a.m.—
Thcamon's Palest Ch)drattile maehtheryl, to Ls hearing,

HOSIgIrr-OF LORDB.--Jtrirs 10.
APPEALS.
ynimarrow v. Ta.VUTON.

Mr. Roll haviliZatTeWthConTltid7tf hriadtbim.
Sir H. Cairns followed on the same side, and commenced
by observing that in • suit for decimator of marries., the
onus of proving the marriage was upon the pursuer. and
Dukes the respondent discharged that onus, aLe could not
succeed is the appeal. The Scotch law of marriage ought,
according to the opinion of the Scottish judges. to be
further relaxed. The potpie of Scotland might desire to
' retain that law, but it was certainly an which filled
straagen to that country with surprise, sod it ought not to
be made more facile than it wee at present. The plats is
law of the respondent set up three marriages; mar-
riage, per verbs de preseoth proved, according to one
plea, by the statements of parties who had heard the con-
tract made, and according to the other by subsequent
acknowledgment,—the second a riarri•ge proved by pro-
mise subsequeute reptile, and the third Irish
As to the marriage per verbs de presenti, he con d
that the contract must be made in Sootiest', and any
acknowledgment or atbnimioe by which it was to be proved
mast be clearly and distinctly acknowlleeddppooeats or &dials-
noes of amarriageieScotland,andootaoywbereelea. In regard
to the promise of marriage, subeequeete cora* be conten-
ded that to oonstinte such • marriage both the promise
and the cohabitation must be in Scotland ; audit was neces-
sary to show within bow short a time the evidence ea to
the marriage in Scotland was narrowed. The parties were
only together from the beginning of February to the lith
or 15th of April, and from 13th September to the end of
November in the same year. The marriage per verbs de
wreath which was averred on the record, was disproved
by tbe isoonaisteocies sod contradictions in the evidence
by which it was sought to be established. Some other
marriage per de verbs de pressnti might be inferred
from the acknowledgments and admisaimis, but it could not
be the marriage which the respondent set forth in the
pleadings. The correspondence between the parties nega-
tived the presumption of a marriage having been contracted
between them in Scotland. As to the Irish marriage, he
contended that it was by statute not valid, se having been
per!ormed between a Papist and Protestant by a Roman
catholic priest. The learned coursed then elaborately and
minutely applied the evidence to the view of the law for
which he was contending. The learned gentleman bad Dot
concluded when the house adjourned.