The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-30 00:00:00

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF TILE PRIVY

COUNCIL.-SATURDAY.
BSPOIII Tilt CIIANCRI.WI or Till Ih.cur or I.AscAorms, Tilt 11LDtt
or rot Amu Cur ate TUN Woo= 11031, Si. E. 11TAX; MID
rat LORD Color LlAaos.

CO7NETCY'TeI;;;;L.LY.—ItrATITUTION Or CONJUGAL

RIGHTS 3OCCHST.-7CTRIOUS CAMS.

....
This ease, which was partly heard yesterday, was resumed
this morning.
As before, Dr. Addams and Mr. Roundel! Palmer ap-
peared for the appellant ; Dr. Bayford and Dr. Phillimort
represented the respondent.
fhe allegation, after quoting the letter with which the
report in Saturday's Erpreas concluded, stated that,
notwithstanding premises, the appellant was served, at
Hastings, on the 25th of January, 1819, with u decree,
by leters of request, in a suit for restitution of con-
jugal rights, at the promotion of the respondent, and then
alleged that there were rules of the Roman catholic
church applicable to the quest:on at issue between the par-
ties in this cause derived trout and regulated by written
laws or canons in that behalf, and of which the principal
are to be found in the Decretals, fiber 3, titulus 32, Do
Conversione t'ongregaturum. This allegation having been

brought in was opposed by the respondent, and, atter'argu-
ment before the learned judge of the Court of Arches, it
was rejected by him, he being of opinion that thz circum-
stances pleaded in the allegation would not be a bar to the
sentence prayed, even if they were established in evidence.
Against this decision Mrs. Connolly appealed to the Privy
Connell. _ .

It was contended in support of the appellant's case, that
the sentence procured by the appellant was pronounced by
a competent tribunal, and that the learned judge, Sir Iler-
beet Jcnner Fust, was not justified in rejecting the allega-
tion. The papal restrict was equivalent to a decree in
cause of separation in the ecclesiastical courts el this coon-
try. It had been pleaded, at the 21st article of the appel-
lant's allegation that according to the rules of the Roman
catholic church which were to be found in the Decretals,
Liber 111., Titulus X X XII., He Conversion Conj ugatorum,
that a husband and wife, post matrimonium consurnmatum,
might lawfully separate by mutual consent, in order that
they might enter into religion severally, namely, by the
husband taking holy orders, and the wife making a vow of
perpetual chastity, and entering a religious house, being
contested, and taking the veil, and that a separation founded
on such mutual contest, and for such purpose, ever after
such orders had been taken, and such vow or profession
made, though not annulling such matrimonium consent-
matwn, debarred the parties " in petetuum :ib omni mu
ejuselem," and from that time forth, '• alter alterion repo-
tere non potent." A separation of husband and wife, by
mutual consent, for such views and objects, must,
however, be approved of, and allowed by the
Pope, upon the petition of the parties, and his
rescript of such approval and allowance upon the reli-
gious profession of the husband and wife severally, or
the ordination of the husband and the vow of religious
profession of the wife had all the force of a judicial sen-
tence, such rescript being deemed a conditional sentence
from the time of its issue, but having its full force and
vigour from the moment that the conditions mentioned or
referred to in the rescript had been fulfilled. It had been
represented in the court below that this was only a dispen-
sation front the Pope of the necessity of obtaining letters
dimissory from the bishop of Philadelphia. It was, how-
ever, to all intents and purposes a sentence of separation,
and it emanated from a competent tribunal. In the course
of the month of June 1845, the appellant entered into a
vow of perpetual chastity—the very vow prescribed by the
papal rescript—with the full knowledge and approbation of
her husband, and the respondent in conformity with the
rescript had entered into holy ordets. The sen-
tence had therefore come into complete and full
operation. The learned judge of the Arches Court had
said that if a sentence of separation had been
pronounced at Rome it would have been entitled to high
respect. The sentence of separation had been pronounced
while the parties were domiciled at Rome. The learned
Judge had mixed up two questions—status and separation
—which were totally distinct. It would be cruel to compel
the appellant to return to the respondent. Mr. and Mrs.
Connelly were residing at Rome at the time the separation
took place, and according to the law of that country the
sentence was equivalent to separation a menus et thoro. It
had not been shown that Mr. and Mrs. Connelly were not
domiciled at Rome. What was the domicile of Mr. and
Mrs. Connelly; Mr. Connelly's birth domicile was Penn-
sylvannia ; he married, settled, and acquired a domicile in
Mississippi; he then resided for upwards of two years at
Rome, and he wns consequently subject to its laws. The
point was, whether or not the husband was entitled to ask
for a restitution of conjugal rights? Foreign law could
alone determine that point, and it would be extraordinary
if the court held that after a husband had led his wife to
enter into solemn vows of chastity, lie could compel her to
break those vows. It would be cruelty of the highest de-
gree. It was, therefore, contended upon every considera-
tion that the decree of the court below ought to be re-
versed.

It was contended, on behalf of the respondent, that by
the laws of this country, the only lawful cause for with-
drawal from cohabitation was cruelty and adultery. The
law of this country did not take into consideration volun-
tary agreements entered into by parties to live separately.
The domicile of the wife was the domicile of the husband.
Mr. and Mrs. Connelly had gone to Rome for a special pur.
pose, and had then come to this country. The husband had
resided with the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the wife had
been the superior of a religious community. Could it be
said that an English domicile had not been obtained 1 The
laws of the Roman catholic church on the ground of
celibacy were not binding in this country. Two statutes
of Edward IV. set aside this law, and the head
of the Roman catholic church possessed the power
of dispensing with all the vows taken by mem-
bers of that church. The act of ►iving together
in the same house, did not necessarily involve a breach of
the vow of chastity. It was said that this was a formal
decree, and was tantamount to an actual separation. It
was not an adjudication of a competent court in a matri.
monisl suit. The respondent was married according to the
rights and ceremonies of the church of England, and Mr.
and Mrs. Connelly pledged themselves never to depart from
cohabitation. It had never been shown that they had been
ever domiciled at Rome. If the sentence of a foreign court
could be proved, then the plea in which it was alleged
would be admissible. If parties took vows in forgetful-
ness of their original contract, those vows were subsidiary
to the claims which sprung out of the original act.
Without hearing the appellant's counsel en reply, the
committee asked whether the appellant's counsel were dis-
posed to reform the allegation by stating the domicile of
the parties to be, as we understood, in Philadelphia.
Dr. Addams assented.
The committee said that when the allegation was
amended they would admit it, and that they would then
remit the case to the Court of Arches. They were of
opinion that the appellant ought to be allowed to amend
her allegation, but they would decline to express an opinion
as to how far the allegation sought to be amended, would
ultimately affect the case.
The committee then adjourned.
EQUITT COURTS.-13srusDAY.

HIJOAII TOO LOAD CNA/MELLOR.
Ilia lordship made orders in about 26 petitions in the
matters of lunatics, and at 12 o'clock withdrew to the
private room to hear a petition in the matter of Marsh, a
lunatic, and intimated to the bar that he would not sit is
court again in the course of the day.

Berms Loan Cam/wows (Vica-ellonnu4o.
ArroyoEr-Umlaut. r. RONINSON.—APPOINTMENT ON
TRUSTIES TO A WESLEYAN CHAPEL. 04.0 i
This was an information, hied at the ininance
.. , . z mg
ministers of a Wesleyan chapel in Ewen, against alleletlP-; - , le-i
tees for the purpose of preventing them from ellortepir OM I •
< * ,; •V ' . -*'-'
A. '• .').. ' • 17'
VI -) -.„. .
4. •
.-
4: ,-- , ,'
'1:1- `‘, .•