The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-15 00:00:00

tato intelignut.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Present—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Brounbam, and Lord Cempbell.
Wall V. CaAISPUZD LSD cruse.—SCROOLSIAJTBS.,
11X0VAL OP.—This was an Ertl against an iaterlocutor
of the Court of Series in Scot end, refusing the sppoileat'e
application for an interdict (or injunction) wise the re-
spondent's proceeding to remove knit bon lie alloe of
teacher in an academy at Kilmarnock. That assissay was
supported by the subscription of several piddle beaks, mer-
chants, and individuals of the burgh, and the Mustose ap-
pointed by them to manage the academy, elected the
on the resignation of a Mr. Thomson in 1820, to teach
English, English grammar, elocution, and writing. He
continued in that office, having apartments in the academy
and 181. aqui stipend, until 1844, when, upon charges of
misconduct in ether occupations held by him, not con •
fleeted with his duty as master in the academy,
the directors proceeded to remove him. He then applied
for the interdict, which the court refused to grant as above
mentioned.—Mr. Anderson, for the appellant, argued, first,
that he bad been elected to the office of teacher in the
academy ad vitae, ant co/pons, and it being a public office
he was not removable, except upon proved delinquency;
secondly, that, supposing he was not a public officer, the
directors were guilty of several irregularities in their pro-
ceedings to remove the appellant.
The Lord Chancellor and the other learned lords interposed
several times charier the argument, and expressed their
opinions that the office which the appellant held, was not a
public office, each as that of a parochial schoolmaster; and
that as to the proceedings taken by the respondent. for his
removal, he had notice of them, and abandoned all defence.
—Their lordships, without hearing the counsel for the
respondents, affirmed the interlocutor, but without costa, in
consideration of the hardship of the case.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
-

THE QUEEN V. THE INHABITANTS OP ST. GILES'S IN
THE FIELDS.—IS A MARRIAGE BETWEEN A WIDOWER
AND EIS DECIALIED WIPE'S ILLEGITIMATE SISTER
VALID ?—This wu
metropolis far
against an order of a rhos
magistrate of the far removing Mary Burnet and
her child to the place o the last legal settlement of William
Burris, her late husband and the father of the child, to
whom she was married in the year 1837. The serious con-
firmed the order, subject to a special case, which sat out that
the pauper Mary Bonin was the illegitimate alder sister, by
the same parents, of Hannah the deemed wife of the mid
William Barrio, and asked the opinion of the court whether
the marriage of parties standing in that relation to one ano-
ther, wan legal. Mr. Peacock and Mr. Knapp (with whom
was Sir F. Kelly, Q.C., who postponed his argument until
the came of " The Queen e. Chadwick," in which he will
support the tame preposition, should be called on) contended,
in support of the order of sessions: 1. That the marriage of a
widower with the sister of his deceased wife wasnot within the
& 6 Will. IV., c. 54, s. 2, which enacts that "all marr•ages
which shall hereafter be celebrated between persons within
the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity, shall
be absolutey null and void to all intents and pumper
whatsoever," became the prohibited degrees of affinity were,
by the operation of the 1 & 2 Elis., c. 1, repealing the
1 Phil. and Mary, N. 2, c. 18, sec. 17, and, therefore, re-
nriog the 32 Henry VIII., c. 38, so far as it had not
been repealed by the 2 & S Bd. VI., c. 23, those only
which were contrary to the law of God. Now, by the law
of God, or, in other words, by the Levitical law, the prohi.
bition in cases of affinity was not co-extensive with that in
casts of consanguinity, and a marriage might be within the
prohibited degrees, and not within the actual prohibition, if
contrasted between persons eau:acted by affinity only. A
marriage between persons so connected, Si the parties to that
under consideration, was not expressly forbidden by the Levi-
tical law, unless it took place during the life of the first
wife. " Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex
her in her lifetime." Ley. 18, v. 18. In cases of consan-
guinity, the converse of a prohibition necessarily held
good, but in cases of affinity, though the convene of a pro.
hibition held good between the same parties, it by no means
necessarily held good between similar parties. Thus,
though a man might not marry his brother's widow,
except under certain circumstance', it did not follow
that a woman might not, under say circumstances, marry
her sister's widower. If, however, such marriage was not
within the express prohibition of the Levitical law, nor its
illegality a direct consequent of any such prohibition, neither
was it forbidden by any canons of authority or statutory ex-
position of marring-8 unlawful (or affinity. The canons of
1603 were only binding on the clergy ; and the table ap-
peadad to some prayer-books was not to be found in the copy
of the book of common prayer, which, by statute, had been
nob part of the records of each of the superior courts. That
Wog so, the court would recollect that the Ist see. of the
e t 3'. 4, confirmed many marriages of the very kind now
sob do subject of inquiry, and would not give a decision
whit& would proaounce all those marriages, so affirmed by
the legislature, to be contrary to the law of God—a decision
which would be at variance from the practice of &reign
courts, and the jurisprudence of foreign countries, both
protestant and catholic. They contended, 2. That whatever
the court might do in cases of legal consanguinity, it would
distinguish between legal and natural consanguinity in the
case of such a =serfage, for the purpose of upholding it.
The rule at common law was, that a bastard was no one's
child, and, therefore, no one's brother or sister. For the
sake of morality the ecclesiastical courts had departed from
the rule which that maxim proscribed ; and, for the take of
morality, the court would in this instance adhere to it. The
further hearing was then adjourned to this morning.
lsm Pluvi.—Before Mr. Image Wightman.
Tan Quinn V. BROCINIL—INDICTMENT FOR ASSAULT.—
The prosecutor woo apnoea of the name of Macleish, and
bed Mesa hotaos to llor Dike of Nortkaorbutaad ; wad the