The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-26 00:00:00

NEW COURT.

BIOAMT.—IMPORTAPITQt/iiilo;;. Wluiam COMM' TM
indicted for intermarrying with Emily Pettit, his wife
Emma being then end new alive.—Ann Carter, rioter to the
prisoner, deposed that the lived at Cambridge. Blsa knew
a person who, on the 2nd of June, 1836, was married to her
brother by the name of Emma Webb. This same
was now living. Crose-examined.—Knew Emma Water
the name of Amy &mains; believed that to be her peeper
name, and that the name of Emma Webb was an resumed
one. Before the marriage, she mid she did not like the
name she bore, and she would he married In the prettier
name of Emma. Her brother and this yarn wawa lived
together s. man and wife. They bad frequent vim* and
it was notorious that she bad bass married in she saes of
Lama Webb, while her real same woe Amy, sad they
Vented the marriage as not binding apes them. They fre-
quently told each other that they were sot married, and
rated as If they really believed that the ceremony was null
sad void.—The Recorder interrupted, and asked the
learned counsel hew he meant to apply the effect of
this cresoimaininatios ?—)lr. Prendergast mid that his

prisoa;r had acted upon
object wen to show that the
the belief that his first marriage was in fact no mar-
riage at all, and that the wife believed so too. If that
were shown, the felonious intent fell to the ground.-
-The Recorder said he could not allow that de-
fence to be made. If that defence were to prevail, society
would no longer be safe, and married persons who had
grown tired of each other might marry agate, and set up, as
a bona fide defence, that they did not believe themselves to
be married. Their belief would not affect the law, and their
belief would not render their marriage void.—Mr. Prender-
gast urged that the evidence established this fact, that the
first wife's real name was Amy, while, from some caprice,
she usumed that of Emma.—Tke Recorder asked the wa-
nes if the young woman was known to the world as Emma
Webb?—Tee witness said that she assumed the name of
Emma immediately before the marriage, but she was known
to all her friends by it—The Recorder said, under these
circumstances, if he liked, the learned counsel might put it
to the jury whether this false name was assumed solely for
the purpose of the marriage with the prisoner, but the en-
dues' was that she was wall known by it befue.—Mr.
Prendergast urged that he had a right to assume that
there was a mutual belief that the marriage was
not a binding one.—The Recorder said it was a most im-
portant point with regard to them cum. He would con-
sult Mr. Baron Parke upon it.—Mr. Prendergast did not
wish fer that. He did not in the least differ from his lord-
ship's ruling.—The Recorder then consulted Mr. Baron
Parke upon the point. His lordship fully concurred in the
view taken by the Recorder.—John Harvey, a policeman,
produced copies of two mania' ge certificates. The first
appeared to have been solemnised between the prisoner and
Emma Webb, as above stated, and the second iv Sept., 1847,
between the primmer and Emily Pettit, at Hackney Old
Church. Both documents were properly authenticated, and
were sworn to be correct copiee—Emily Pettit said that the
had known the prisoner about four years, and she also knew
the parson who lived with him as his wife. They had a small
bmdaam in Spitalfields, and whams lived with them as
aesistaat at stated wages. In the curse of last year she
went out with the prisoner, and that coming to the know-
ledge of her mistime, them were some angry words
between her and the prisoner. She then left the
Gerrie*. After that she frequently saw the prisoner
sad at last they agreed to be married. They were
accordingly married, and lived together as man and wife.
The first wife knew of it, and acted as if she were nut mar-
ried to him, and frequently said that her marriage with him
was invalid. She even offered that they should all live to.
gether ander one roof. Witness lived with the prisoner un-
til he was taken into custody.—The Recorder en summing
up to the jury said this case involved a very important point,
Which, if allowed to prevail, would make wild work with
the present fundamental basis of moiety. It was shown that
the person was publicly known by her friends as Emma
Webb, and moreover she had been married in the presence
of her father, whose filtered it would be to tee his daughter
properly married. Could the jury say, then, that the pri-
soner sincerely believed he was free from that bond ? A
potion had got married in England, and had actually got
divorced in Scotland, where he again got married; but he
was convicted of bigamy, although he pleaded his divorce as
an excuse. The cue of the Duchess of Kingston, who was con-
victed of bigamy at the bar of the House of Lords, was even
more singular than that. The prisoner claimed a dissolution
of his marriage because he simply believed it was not a good
one. He had married Lomond wife, and had lived with
her; and It was proved that the parties were so lost to
morality and decency, that a proposal was made for them all
to live under one roof. Had the prisoner been legally ad-
vised that he was free from the first marriage the cue would
have been different. Under the circurostanoss he (the Re-
corder) considered the charge of felony established, and the
prisoner bad wickedly contracted the wood mare
age
daring all consequences.—The jury found the prisoner
Guilty.—The Recorder sentenced him to six months' hard
labour.