The Express.
London, England, 1861-04-22 00:00:00

BRUTAL ATTEMPT TO MURDER A ~ALE

BY BURGLARS.
--4--

This morning the neighbourhood of Islington was
greatly excited by an announcement that a female servant,
named Mary Ann Reddison, had been brutally murdered by
bmglan•

From inquiries made on the spot it appears that last
night Mr. George Higgins, a butcher, carrying on bud.
nese at 47, Chapeletreet, Islington, went out with hie
family to church, leaving the servant alone in the house. A
young man of the name of Frederick Strugnell, a butcher,
residing at 1, Alm►•terrace, Thornhill-road, Langton, who
had formerly been in the prosecutor's employ, called upon
the injured woman, and was admitted to the house by her.
When he had been there some time, he left and fetched
some gin, and it is suspected that he then admitted
some thieves. into the house. On his return,
and when he and the servant had partaken of some
gin, she went up stairs, but at onoe returned in a state of
great trepidation, said the house had been robbed, and that
she should at tom apprise the police. This he asked her
not to do, but she persisted, on which Strugnell became
very violent and struck her a heavy blow. Finding that she
still persisted in her endeavours to get out of the house
and to tell the police, he took tip a heavy chopper and
struck her several violent blows over the head and face.
She called out, "Do not hurt me, Fred," and "Murder;
and this being heard by some of the pumas by, they
broke open the door and found the unfortunate female
lying insensible on the ground, her head cut in several
places, her fingers cut, and her nose hanging only by • small
piece of skin.

Information was given to the police, and the matter being
placed in the hands of Inspector Judge, N division, assisted
by policeeonstable Tompkins, 395 N, and Waters, 56 N,
they apprehended the prisoner, and when they told him
the charge he said he knew nothing of the transaction.
When Mr. Higgins returned home he found that an
iron safe, containing a large sum of money, had been stolen,
and that the thieves had effected their escape by getting
out of the back windows sad over the walls.

The prisoner, who is slim built fellow, was brought up
and remanded for further inquiries.
The unfortunate female, who was taken to the Boyal Free
Hospital, Gray's Inn-road, now lies there in au insensible
state and she is not expected to recover.

DIOCZAUP OP LONDON.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.-APPEALS.

BUXOM r. BEAMISII.-MARRIAGE OF HIMSELF DT A

CLIFIGYMAN.

This was an appeal from the Court of Exchequer Cham-
ber, in Ireland, affirming • judgment of the Court of
Queen's Bench. Dr. John Samuel Beamish, grandfather of
the defendant in error, Henry Albert Beamish, had two
sons, the eldest, the late Rev. Samuel Sway.. Beamish,
and the second, Mr. Benjamin Swayne Beamish, the pre-
sent plaintiff in error. Henry Albert Beamish is
the only son of the Rev. Samuel Swayne
Beamieh, who died in him father's lifetime, and Henry
Albert Beamish was therefore entitled to succeed
to certain lands as heir-at-law of his grandfather. His
title, however, is disputed by him uncle, Benjamin Swarm
Beamish, the second son of his grandfather, on the ground
that he is not the legitimate son of the Rev.
Samuel Swayne Beamish. That gentleman, in 1831, went
through the ceremony of a marriage in a private
room in a house in Cork, without witnesses, with a Miss
Labelle Fraser, reading the service himself. On the death
of Dr. John Samuel Beamish, his second son, Benjamin
Swayne Beamish, entered into possession of his estates as
his heir at law. On this an action of ejectment was brought
on behalf of Henry Albert Beamish, the son of the late Rev.
Samuel Swayne Beamish, by the marriage aforesaid, and the
question was whether such a marriage was valid, his uncle,
Benjamin Swayne Beamish, contending that it was not—
that he was illegitimate, and therefore not entitled to
inherit his grandfather's estates as heir at law in right
of his father. A special verdict was returned at the trial,
sod the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland was
taken. It was therelecided that the marriage of the Rev.
Samuel Swayne Beamish was valid, that his sou was legiti-
mate, and entitled to the estates. This decision was affirmed,
on writ of error to the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Ire-
land, by a majority of the judges of six to nve,and the present
appeal was then brought. The question, as has been stated,
is whether the plaintiff below, Henry Albert Beamish,
was the legitimate son of the late Rev. Samuel Swayne
Beamish, and the point involved is whether after the Refor-
mation and before Lord Hardvticke's Marriage Act in Eng-
land, or 7 and 8 Vic., c. 81, in Ireland, a clergy.
man in orders can effectually contract marriage
without the presence of another clergyman ; in abort.,
whether a clergyman can many himself. This question
was submitted to several of the common law judges who
assisted at the hearing last session ; and on the 21st of
February last Mr. Justice Willes delivered the unanimous
opinion of their lordship in the negative.
v ered.
The judgment of their lordships' house was now deli-

The Lord Chancellor said that had the present case been
t before the house previously to the decision of their
lborordugps in the year 1844, in the case of "Regina v. Millis,"
he should not have hesitated to advise their lordships to
affirm the judgment in favour of the validity of the mar-
riage, and the legitimacy of the respondent. The
special verdict set out proved contract of marriage
per verbs de presents," intended and believed
by the parties to make them husband and wife,
without any further ceremony. The effect of such a
contract would have depended on the common law of Eng-
land respecting the constitution of marriage before Lord
Hardwicke's Act, which passed in 1753, sad according to that
law, he should have said that, without any rerud being had to
the fact of the husband being a priest episcopally oidained,
this was, " ipsum matrimonium," conferring on the parties
and ensuring to their children all the civil rights flowing
from a valid marriage. This was founded on the maxim
" consensus tacit matrimonium," and understood to be the
universal law of Christendom. It must now, however, be
considered as having been determined by this house that there
never could have been a valid marriage in England before
the Reformation without the presence of a priest, 'spina.
pally ordained, or afterwards without the presence of a
priest or of a deacon. If it were competent to him, he
would now have asked their lordships to remember the
I doctrine in " Regina v. Millis," as he considered it
most unjust and tyrannical that an invariable
form of oelebrsting a valid marriage should be indis-
pensably required, which might be contrary to the reli-
gious feeling of any class in the community ; but be had
always been of opinion that to consUtute this the most im-
portant of coutracta, on which society itself depends, there
ought to be a public form of celebration, the addition of a
religious ceremony being highly desirable, although not abso-
lutely necemary. Bathe was boned by that case; and signaling
that by the common law of England there must have been
present a clergyman in orders, the question now to be de.
terrnined was whether the bridegroom being such a
clergyman, and there being no other clergyman present,
a valid marriage was contracted. No authority had
been found to show that one individual could represent the
two character of btidsgroom end priest, who are both to be
on the scene at the same time... either on principle or au-
thority could he find anything to support the judgment ap-
pealed against. It was always exceedingly disagreeable to him
to advise their lordships to reverse any judgment, and he felt
peculiar reluctance to do so where the judgment in a case
of this sort is io favour of legitimacy. But being of opinion,
after mach deliberation, that this judgment could not stand
with their lordship.' decision in "Regina v. Millis," he must
not only in the discharge of his duty, according to their
lordships standing order, as Speaker, put the question that
"the judgment be reversed," but if there was a division be
must for himself say "content."
Lord Cranworth, Lord Wensleydale, and Lord Chelmsford,
having delivered elaborate judgments, concurring with the
Lord Chancellor,
The judgment of the court below was reversed.