The Express.
London, England, 1860-11-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(TSB DAY.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings in Banoo.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and
'Justices Bylee end Keating.)

&ANIL AND ANOMIE' V. GREEN AND ANOTHER.--CKMII

RATIO..

In thin ease proceedingikad been taken in the Arches
Court of Canterbury by the plaintiffs, who are chur.h.
wardens of the parish of Hadley, in Suffolk, to recover frum
the defendants their portico of a church rate.
Mr. Philbeick, however, now moved for a writ of prohi-
bition to stay the prommilisp, upon the ground that the
notice calling the vestry meeting to make the rate was net
sufficient. The substantial parry of the notice were as
: Noticsis hereby, given, that tin churchwardens, over-
seers, and other principal inhabitants of this parish, Are re.
quested to meet to examine the churchwardens' scoonote
and to grant them a rate." The grimed' upon which this
notice was submitted to be bad were that no parish was
named, that it was noqeddressed to ell the ratepayers, and
that it did not vecificsally appoint a vestry meeting, but
only "
_requested" the persons to whom the notice was
adblesed to meet.
The wart held that the notice was sufficient.
Bale refined.

COURT OF DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAIII9S.

(Before the Judge-Ordinary, Mr. Justice Wightman, and
Mr. Justice Williams.)

SITEDDILN AND SHEDD= r. 191 AITOILYET-GENESAL (PATRICE
CITED TO 14EI PIOCISDENOB.)--DICLAIATION Or LEG!.
MULCT.

this,llie first case under the Legitimacy Declaration Act,
was a suit to determine the legitimacy of William Patrick
Balaton Shedden, now a prisoner in the Queen's Bench.
At the sitting of the Court,
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., applied for an adjournment on the
ground that neither be nor Sir Hugh Cairns (who was with
him) had been enabled to give that attention to the papers
which the complicated and very peculiar nature of the
ease rtouilei, rt IMr.
Q.C. (with whom were Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Dr.
Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Power), appeared for the defendant Patrick, and objected to any delay.
Mr. Macaulay thought it right to add that his application
was made, not at the request, but against the desire of his
clients, who had even prayed him to retire rather than
there should be an adjournment.
Sir C. Oveswell stated that, before the long vacation, he
had given notice that this case would be the first that
would be taken this term. Great public inconvenience
would arise If it were postponed. It must therefore go on.
Mr. Macaulay regretted to say that, under the circum-
stances, it must go on without the aid of himself and his
invited friends. The learned gentleman and his colleagues
then withdrew.

Miss Madden accordingly stood forward, and in a very
lengthened, but exceedingly lucid, and even eloquent
speech, stated the case in support of her father's
petition. The Sheddens were an Ayrshire
Kr. Shedden had married the daughter of • neigh.
boar named Ralston, and by her had had three
children, one of whom—a son William—was the father of
the petitioner. He had also a daughter, who was married
to another Ayrshire gentleman, named Patrick, sad who
had bad Rues eons—Robert, born in 1764; John,
born in 1768 ; and William (who was still living),
born in 1770. Re bad also bad two daughters,
Jane and Elizabeth. In 1764 William Shedden went out to
Virginia, and after having traded with some success, he
was ruined by the revolution, he having always adhered
to the royalist cause. After the peace be went to New
York, where he commenced a new business, and where, as
was alleged by the petitioner, he married a Miss
Annie Wilson the daughter of a Scotch farmer in
the neighbourhood. This manage was stated to have taken
place in 1791, end to have been followed by a matrimonial
i cohabitation n • house adjoining his place of business in
Waterstreet, New York. In 1792 his first child,
Jane Ralston Skeddeu was born, • lady still
living, who would be produced in the COlllllO of the cause. •
His next child born 1794, was the petitioner whom he had
baptised by the family names of William Patrick: Ralston.
Miss Shedden contended that by the law of New York no
religious ceremony was necessary to constitute
• valid marriage • but • marriage might be
proved by the Parties acknowledging themselves
to be husband and wife, by living openly together
as such ; and by doing those acts which were commonly
done by respectable married people. She (Miss Shedden)
hoped to be able to prove, first, the actual fact of the
marriage, but certainly a marriage by habit and repute. It
was true, that shortly before Mr. Shedden's death, the eery).
mony of his marriage was formally repeated ; but what
thecourtwonldbe asked tobelieve by the other side was that
Mrs. Shedden was an abandoned woman, who till then
bad only maximally cohabited with her husband. She
I (Miss Shedden) hoped however to be able to show that
this was a moss calumny upon the fair fame of her
mother, and that those honourable ladies and gentlemen n
who had deposed to the married status of Mr. and Mrs.
Wm. Shedden had not wilfully perjured themselves. She
trusted that she should have the sympathy of the
court in the painful position in which she was placed,
--sympathy, not for her case, but for herself. She feltthct
some prejudice might arise against her for having thus condi
forward to defend the character of her grandmother; and
an apprehension might be entertained lest in an age when so
much was said of woman's rights, other ladies might be in.
dueed by her example to plead their causes in penon. But she
felt it was impossible that her example could ever have
many imitator.. In the But place, she was conscious her
ewe was a wholly unprecedented use ; and she felt also
that the appalling difficulties which she had to face and
the painful position in which she found herself were such,
that few of the great sisterhood of Englishwomen would
venture upon so arduous • task.
Sir C. Gresswell said there was • preliminary question
which it would be desirable to dispose of at once, namely,
whether if the court were to make • decree
in favour of the petition it would not be
contravening decisions of the House of Lords and the Court
lof Sessions in Scotland.? If that were so, it would be fatal
1 to the petition, unless the decision of this court on that pre-
liminary question were overruled by the House of Lorda.
The objection might have been taken at an earlier stage
but he had thought proper not to allow it sooner, lest the
evidence of mane of the witnesses proposed to be examined.
should in the mean time have been lost. It became, how.
ever, now neomeary to raise and determine the point.
Miss Shedden submitted that the JudgeOrlinary had decided
that the question of resjudicatn might be treated merely as
part of the case, and that it might stand over for decision
till the end of the whole argument.
The court (after retiring to deliberate) said the question.
must be argued tomorrow morning, and if Mies Shedden
wished she might have the assistance of her counsel, not-
withstanding that for general purposes they had withdrawn
from the case, and she hail herself addressed the court.

Mus Shedden then resumes her statement, end warn pro.
reeding when we went to prem.

THE POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)