The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-14 00:00:00

ROLFORN.

Tim TII CIA ICE M EFTS OAT. Mr. Vollnlin;
Mend-unto Leona awl I' MAunokr.— Tom ANTIPODE.;
Megan. K. Ganlen, V, II U. like, Make, It. Thorne. mid H.
Emery; Allenthnuen Ellen Terry, IlAyanouLl, and C. brawlers.

BRITANNIA.
TRyq ETtßogn, TOE MARRIAOR CRRTIFWATE : OR, A
MoTil F. %Irk 8 Line e llildrl.rod land
Yrinoside. the reit...AA —Excelsior" hunger.—Concluding with
AULD !WE IN

ITTOIT WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
nos DAT —Wonting. Oh. Ow..— Afternoon, Oh. 23rn.
TlA•MORhoW—![orning, Oh. 47 Afternoon, IL um

LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 14.

ONE of the most curiously difficult questions of
marriage which has ever perplexed our courts
occupied ten days in argument before the Court
of Exchequer last term, and was disposed of
without being decidodyesterday. It arose out of
no difficulty of interpretation of the English Mar-
riage Act, nor out of any complication as to clan-
destine marriage in Scotland, or mixed marriages
in Ireland, such as have sometimes confused our
judges. In this instance the ruling law was that
of Lombardy, the ceremonial was that of the Roman
Catholic Church, and the dispute turned mainly on
the question whether tho rules of the Austrian
military service overrode those of the civil code,
and whether a Protestant could be held to have,
in the chaplain of his regiment, an official director
of his soul. On these points hung the descent of
an English baronetcy and large estates. General
MARCVE SLADE, the claimant, insisted that his
late brother, the undoubted owner of both title
and land, had not been duly married, because his
wife had been previously duly married to an Aus-
bian officer under the proper rules of the church,
the law, and the army. Sir ALFRED SLADE (to
concede to the defendant the title at present in
dispute) denied that his mother had been guilty of
bigamy, and argued that her first marriage was no
marriage at all. The case came by mutual agreement
before the Court of Exchequer without the inter-
vention of a jury; and so nice and critical were the
arguments, that the Court was equally divided, and
thus no judgment was pronounced. Consequently
the son, whose legitimacy was impeached, being in
possession by virtue of the presumption arising
from the English marriage of his mother, is, for
at least the present, continued in his position,
rather by the failure to impeach is title than
by its intrinsic goodness.

The facts out of which this singular question
arose were simple enough. In 1825 Mias MOBTYN,
an English lady, whose beauty excited some sensa-
tion in Milan, where she was residing for a season
with her mother, was married to Von KOIRBER,
an Austrian lieutenant of Engineers. There was
some clerical difficulty in effecting the nuptials, fur
the lady was a Catholic, the gentleman a Pro-
testant, and the law of Lombardy forbids mixed
marriages unless the dispensation of the Fora
has been obtained. The priest of the parish,
therefore, refused to officiate, but the military
position of the bridegroom supplied what all
parties deemed at the time a valid resource, for he
applied to the Austrian chaplain of the forces
—Feld Superior Naor—to perform the cere-
mony, and the military clergyman felt himself not
hampered by the local Lombard law, and, regard-
ing himself as the proper priest of an officer, even
though Protestant, made no difficulty in cele-
brating a rite to which the general law of
Austria presented no objection. But in order
to make even this proceeding justifiable it was
essential that there should have been previous
publication of banns in the parish in which the
lady had resided for six weeks. It was alleged
that they were only published in the parish of
Sta. Babyla, in which she had not resided for the
full period required, and that they ought also to have
been published in the parish of herprevious residence.
This ground of impeaching the validity of the cere-
mony rested mainly on the evidence of the lady
herself. But, on the other hand, it appeared that
the pariah priest of Sta. Babyla had furnished to
Feld Superior Naoy a certificate that no impedi-
ment existed to the union, and it was argued that
this almost necessarily implied that there had been
due publication of the banns in his church. At
all events the ceremony was performed, and the
parties lived together for six months as husband
and wife. But Von ICOERBER proved a bad hus-
band, and quarrels soon led to a separation, on
the terms of an annuity being paid to him
during his life. At this stage the late Sir
F. SLADE appeared on the scene, and, taking the
lady's part, the separation from Von Kosaasa
was naturally followed by a union with the Eng-
lish baronet. But the proceeding, which both
parties desired to make legal, was unfortunately
left subject to serious doubts. No process was
instituted in Austria to declare the marriage void.
The annuity, for which it was the consideration,
continued to be regularly paid to Von KOERBER.
It is said that the rite of marriage between Sir
FREDERICK and Lady SLADE was many times per-
formed, in the hope that prior to some one or
other of the occasions Von KOERBER might have
died, and so all doubt be removed. But he did
not die till 1853, and the eldest son of the Eng-
lish nuptials was born in 1834. Hence there
was no choice bet to bring the original validity of
the Milan ceremony before the English courts for
their decision.

It will be seen from this summary that the
points for decision were mainly two. Tho first
was, whether Feld Superior NAGY, the Roman
Catholic chaplain of the forces, was in the sense
of Austrian law the curator animas of • Pro-
testant officer, so as to be entitled to perform
the marriage ceremony between him and
a Catholic, The second was, whether the