The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-02-25 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY MARRIAGE CASE.

The remarkable case of "Beamish v. Beamish,"
involving the question —" Can a clergyman marry him •
self ?" was called on for judgment on Saturday, before
eleven of the tvi elve Irish judges sitting in Error in
Dublin. Baron Pennefather was absent. Subjoined is
an outline of the matter at issue :—The appeal proceed
ings were instituted by the defendant to set aside the
❑nanimous decision of the court below (consisting of
Jud:;es Crampton, Perrin, and Moore), by which a
marriage solemnised under such circumstances was held
to be valid in law. It appeared that this case came
before the court below upon a special verdict finding
that the plaintiff, Albert S. Beamish, a minor, brought an
ejectment upon the title to recover certain lands in the
county of Cork, of considerable value, which he claimed
to be entitled to as grandson and heir at law of the late
Dr. John S. Beamish, of Cork. The defendant denied
the legitimacy of the plaintiff, and also claimed as heir at
law of Dr. Beamish, his father. The special verdict stated

that the late Dr. J. S Beamish was in his lifetime seized of
considerable estates in fee simple, anti died so seized on the
IGth of December, 1852 ; that he had several sons, and

that the eldest was the Rev. Samuel S. Beamish, the
defendant being that rev. gentleman's next bro•her. The
Rev. Hr. Beamish was duly ordained a clergyman of the
United Churches of England and Ireland, and it appeared
that on the 27th of November, 1831, being then in holy
orders, he went to the hoose of a milliner named Anne
Lyons, in the city of Cork, and there performed a cere•
nanny of marriage between himself and a young woman
named Isabella Frazer, the mother of the minor plaintiff.
The special verdict then set out the manner in which the
ceremony of marriage took place, and alleged that the
general form for the solemnisation of that ceremony
prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer of the
United Churches of England and Ireland was used,
the R 3V. Mr. Beamish declaring that he took the
said Isabella Frazer to he his wedded wife, and she
declaring that she took him to be her wedded bus-
band. It further appeared that a wedding ring was
placed upon the finger of Isabella Frazer by the Rev Mr.
Beamish, iaud the usual blessing pronounced ; and that

after the ceremony the marriage was consummated
between the contracting parties. No clergyman was
present at the performance of the ceremony except the
Rev. Mr. Th,amisti himself, nor was there, in fact, any
one present as a formal witness in the room where the

ceremony took place; but as the special verdict alleged,
the performance of the ceremony was witnessed by a
woman named Catherine Coffey, who without the know-
ledge of the contracting parties, and solely from curiosity,
saw it going on through & window from an adjoining
back yard, but did not hear what was said by either party.
Isabella Frazer was admitted a member of the Church
of England. It further appeared that the Rev. Mr.
Beamish, who thus Celebrated this marriage between
himself and Isabella Frazer, died intestate on the Bth of
April, 1844; and that the minor plaintiff was his eldest
son, and the issue or that marriage, born on the 4th of
January, 1841. Upon the foregoing vein- peculiar stee
of facts, the questions raised were-Ist. Had there been
at the ceremony in question worts of present contract by.
which the Rev. S. S. Beautish and Isabella Frazer
engaged to become husband and wife ? 2d. Hai there
been a marriage ceremony performed according to the
forms prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer? 3rd.
Was the marriage so solemnised consummated between
the parties ? 4th. What was the effect of the marriage
ceremony, there being no other clergyman present?
And, lastly, whether, although there was no witness
regularly present, the facts stated in reference to Catherine
Coffey constituted her a witness ? As previously stated, the
Court of Queen's Bench (in the absen'ce of the Lord
Chief Justice from indisposition), after a very full
argument of the case, held that a valid, though an ir-
I regular and clandestine marriage had been solemnised
between the parties upon the authority of the case of
"Maxwell v. Maxwell," and various ether cases decided
both in England an i Ireland. Upon the argument in the
court below, it was contended, on the part of the
defendant, that no court should uphold such a marriage,
and that if marriages in the absence of witnesses were
to be upheld as legal, great injury to the public would
arise ; while on the part of the minor, it was argued
that it would be a gross injustice to him to set aside
the marriage and thereby pronounce him illegitimate,
and deprive him of a large property to which he would
otherwise be entitled as the eldest son of his father. As
the judges differed in opinion, they necessarily pro-
nounced separate. judgments, Mr. Justice Keogh (the
junior judge) commencing, as usual in sueli cases.
Judge Keogh, Baron Greene, Judge Jackson, and Judge
Ball gave judgment against the marriage. Baron
Richards, Judge Perrin, Judge Moore, and Judge Cramp-
ton were in favour of sustaining the judgment of the court
below, The court then adjourned to Saturday morning,
when the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chief Justice of
the Common Pleas, and the Lord Chief Baron will deliver
their opinions. It is rumoured that two of their lordships
are for confirming the judgment of the court below, and
one against it. Should this be the case, there will be
six judges in favour of the marriage, and five against it,
so that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench will
be confirmed by a majority of one.

REBUILDING OF WESTM!NSTEE. BRIDGE.-0a Monday
evening, a numerous and highly influential meeting of the
inhabitants of Lambeth-bridge-road and its vicinity, took
place in Wilcock's Assembly rooms, Bridge-road, to adopt
the requisite measures to prevent the proposed removal of
the site of Westminster-bridge, London. Mr. Archbutt
occupied the chair. A resolution was passed to invite the
members for the borough, W. A. Wilkinson, Esq , and
W.. Williams, Esq., to attend an adjourned meeting of the
borough, to protest against the proposed change of the
site of the budge, It was also resolved that a deputation
from the meeting should wait upon Lord Palmerston.
SnAKSPEARE IN SWlTZERLXND.—Shaksperian discoveries,
it appears, are not confined to England, as some important
ones have just been made in Switzerland. It seems that
aninhabitant of that country, who long resided in England
under the reigns of Elizabeth and James 1., and who after-
wards returned to Switzerland and died at Bale or Zurich,
left behind him a library of English hooks, among whioh
are " Romeo and Juliet," in 4to, 1609 ; "Hamlet," 4to
1611 ; " Wag John," extremely valuable, 4,0, 1591 ;
Volpone," by Ben Johnson, 4to, 1607 ; and many other
pieces, among which is the now very scarce anonymous
comedy of " How is a good wife to be distinguished from a
bad one?" We have as yet received but very briefinfor-
mation of these discoveries, and we wait with great anxiety
for further particulars, but we can, at the present time,
mention the existence in this library of a volume which is
scarcely to be found elsewhere. It is well known that the
" Pericles" of Shaksnere was only printed for the first time
in 1609; the volume to which we allude was published one
year sooner, in 1603, and is nothing less than a recital
composed of the very incidents of the drama of Pericles.""
Only one of this work is known in England, under the title
of " The sad adventures of Pericles, Prince of Tyre," Mr.
Payne Collier printed a few years ago about fifty copies of a
short analysis of it, and the extracts which be quotes show
their very close affinity with Shakspore's drama.