The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-02 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in Banco.-(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott.)
SLADE V. SLADE,. .

This case came again before the court to-day. The
plaintiff was General Sir Marcus John Slade, Baronet, and
the defendant, Alfred Frederick Adolphus Slade, who ap-
=lby the name and title of Sir Alfred F. A. Slade,
t. The action was one of ejectment to recover
possession of certain property in Somerset, and raised the
question whether the plainUff, the claimant, and the twin
brother of the late Sir Frederick William Slade, Q.C.,
who died in August, 1863, was entitled to the Slade taro-
netcy and estates as against the defendant, who was the
eldest son of Sir Frederick.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Kingdon, Q.C., Mr. H.
Buller, and Mr. Howe were for the plaintiff ; and Mr.
Coleridge, Q.C., Mr. Mellish, Q.C., hfr. Henry Matthews,
Mr. Bee, and Mr. Wallis for the defendant.
The Solicitor-General having been heard at great length
on behalf of the claimant, it was now the turn of Mr.
Coleridge to argue the case on the part of the defendant.
Although there was a considerable array of counsel, it is
the practice of the court in cases on the " special paper"
to hear only one on each side, but the counsel who is first
heard has a right to reply.
Mr. Coleridge at the outset of his argument said that
the following were the propositions for which he should
contend :—lsk That the onus of proof was on the Solici-
tor-General ; that it was for him to make out that the mar-
riage of Sir Fred. Slade with Lady Slade at St. George's,
Hanover-square, in December, 1833, was a bad mar-
riage. 2ud. That it was for his learned friend to
show that the priest Nagy was competent to perform the
marriage between Carl Von Koerber and Barbara Maria
Mostyn, at Milan, on the 6th October, 1825. 3rdly. That
it was for him to show that the banns of that marriage had
been published. And 4thly. That it was for him to show
the incompetency of the defendant to dispute the validity
of the Milan mar rage. Having submitted that the Solicito-
r had foiled to satisfy any one of those propositions
the learned counsel said the point for their lordships' deter-
mination was the validity of the English marriage, the
birth of a child of that marriage being one of the admitted
facts of the case. They had to say whether upon the evi-
dence adduced the defendant should be denuded of his in-
heritance and name. According to all the ordinary rule'
of law the plaintiff ought to make out his case, and if be
failed to prove that the marriage in Hanover-square was
bad, he failed to establish the cardinal proposition
on which his whole pretensions rested. He was
not to raise any doubts on the subject nor to raise ques-
tions upon which the court had to speculate as to whether
the whole balance of evidence was in favour of the badness
of that marriage, but must make out his allegation by clear
and unassailable proof. All the probabilities, all the pre-
sumptions were in favour of the marriage of 1833, which
was performed according to the rites of the church
of England. There had been issue of that marriage—
many children had been born—there had been thirty
years' cohabitation, and there had been no oats-
sion—although it had been suggested, but not proved.
when the parties to that marriage, the late Sir
Frederick Slade and his wife, ever manifested the slightest
doubt of the validity of the ceremony which was gone
through. It was true that in the course of the cross-exa-
mination of Lady Slade, his learned friend Mr. Buller
asked her with reference to a letter she had writ.
ten, whether under some particular circumstances. and
at some particular time, Sir Frederick Slade
had not treated her after the marriage as if she
were not his lawful wife; but if their lordships
looked at that pert of the evidence they would find that
Lady Slade repudiated the imputation with the greatest
indignation. The letter so much talked about was never
produced, and the cross-examination appeared to be ad-
dressed to her for the purpose of insulting her and giving
her pain, but it came absolutely to nothing at all. if the
marriage at St. George's, Hanover-square, was bad, the
defendant, who was a young man, was a bastard, his
mother a criminal concubine, and his father was
guilty of criminal conversation. Their lord.hips
could not shrink from the issues which were distinctly
raised ; they could not shrink from considering on whore
. was the onus of .rood to make out affirmative issues sn
serious and so soleigo. The English marriage could only
be made out bad by proving the validity of that which was
said to invalidate it—by proving, not suggesting that that
r which made it bad was good in itself.
(The le.rned counsel was proceeding with has argument
• when our report left.]

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
SMITH AND SMITH v. TEDDITT OTHILDS.—DIPORTga
CADE.
Sir It. l'almer, Q.C., &fiend Bellantifte, Dr. Spink•
Q.C., and Dr. Swabey for the plaintiffs ; the Queen's
Advocate, Mr. Edwar J d ames, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram foe
Mrs. Tebbitt, the principal defendant ; the Solicitor.
General, Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr.Scarle for the others.
The Bev. J. Thwaytes, incumbent of Trinity Church,
Carlisle, a grand nephew of the testatrix's husband, and s
legatee to the extent of 10,0001., also deposed to the per.
feet sanity of the deceased, and denied that her COD.
venation was inorthodox. In 1846 she had told