The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-19 00:00:00

PIERS V. PIERS.

The arguments in this appeal from the decision of the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, which were commenced on
Thursday last, were resumed to day. The case, which
involved a most important question relative to the law of
marriage, came before their Lordships upon appeal from
the judgment of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, touching
the validity of the marriage solemnized between the late
Sir John Bennett Piers and Catherine Denny, in the
Isle of Man, on the 27th of May, 1815. The appellants,
Louisa Adelaide Piers and Florence Anna Maria Sta-
pleton de Kerveguen, originally filed a bill in the Court
of Chancery, and claimed to be entitled, as younger
children of the late Sir John Bennett Piers, Bart., to
raise a charge of 4,4001. upon the family estates, under
a power contained in a certain settlement executed by
the father of the testator on the 2d and 3d of July, 1794.
The question in the present case was the legitimacy of
the appellants. In the course of the proceedings, the
appellants established a marriage de facto between Sir
John Bennett Piers and Elizabeth King, otherwise
Denny, on the 27th of May, 1815. It appeared that
Sir John intended two years previously to celebrate a
legal marriage, in order that his issue might inherit
under the will of the original testator, and with that view
he made an application to his brother, the Rev. Octavius
Piers, to come to the Isle of Man to celebrate the marriage.
The request was prevented by domestic circumstances
in the family of that reverend gentleman. The cere-
mony was, however, performed by one of the curates of
St. George's, Douglas, a chapel of ease in the parish of
Bradden, in the Isle of Man, where Sir John resided, in
the presence of Captain Edwards, at Sir John's resi-
dence. All the parties who were present at the cere-
mony, except Lady Piers, are now dead. Sir John and
Lady Piers were recognised and lived together as man
and wife for upwards of thirty years. In support of the
bill, evidence was given that the clergyman who per-
formed the ceremony had full knowledge of the laws re-
gulating marriages in the island, for he had acted for
five years as domestic chaplain to the Right Rev. Dr.
Cregan, the Bishop of Sodor and Man, and was at the
same time the licensed curate of St. George's, Douglas.
It was also proved that he was cognisant, that, provid-
ing he celebrated a marriage contrary to law, he was
liable to be prosecuted and transported for fourteen
years. In addition to this evidence, it was proved that at
the time the ceremony was performed no registry was
regularly kept in the island, nor was any depository in
existence where a license for the celebration could now
be found. The clergyman and the witness, Captain Ed-
wards, had been dead twenty-seven years. Evidence
was furthermore adduced to show that in the year 1836,
the present appellants had instituted a suit during the
lifetime of Sir John. On that occasion, however, the
legality of the license was not questioned. In that suit
Sir John was examined, and the evidence he then gave
was read in the Court of Chancery in Ireland. Upon
the case coming before the Court below the bill was dis-
missed. The present Lord Bishop of Rochester, who
was, in the year 1815, Bishop of Sodor and Man, having
succeeded the Right Rev. Dr. Cregan, the former bishop,
deposed in the court below that, upon mere recollection,
and after a lapse of thirty years and upwards, he never
gave a license, and that he had never known Sir John
Bennett Piers except by sight. On cross-examination
the Right Rev. Bishop's memory appeared very
defective on several matters, and, amongst other
events, it was proved that he had forgotten
the fact that he had held a " special court" at
his private residence, in the month of October, 1822,
more than seven years after the marriage of Sir John
Bennett Piers, to permit a near relative, Colonel Murray,
to register his marriage, which had taken place some
time subsequently. The Right Reverend Prelate also
appeared to have forgotten the mode of making the pre-
liminary forms of applications for licenses and the taking
of the usual affidavits in the island, for he conceived that
it was the practice to make application to the bishop;
whereas the episcopal registrar, who had held that office
for a long series of years, proved that the usual affidivits
and applications were taken before the registrar. It ap-
peared, in the progress of the case, that, under the provi-
sions of the settlement eacoutPrl on the 2d and ad of July,
1794, a power was given to the late Sir John Bennett
Piers, the eldest son and heir of Sir Pigott W. Piers, of
Tristernagh Abbey, in the county of Westmeath, to
charge the family estates with a jointure of
600/. per annum in bar of dower or thirds,
and further to charge the estates with a sum
of 4,0001. in favour of the younger children.
On the death of Sir Pigott Piers, in the month of April,
1798, he was succeeded by his son and heir-at-law, Sir
John Bennett Piers. Sir Pigott had five younger sons,
all of whom, with the exception of the fifth son, Fre-
derick, died without issue. The present respondent, Sir
Henry Samuel Piers, was the son of Frederick, and,
consequently, became heir-at-law to the estates of the
deceased Baronet. On the 27th May, 1815, Sir John
Bennett Piers married, and in 1836 the two appellants,
who were then respectively aged 21 and 17, made the
two appointments in virtue and under the deed of set-
tlement already referred to, viz., a jointure of 6001. to
his wife, and 4,0001. to be dividd between the appel-
lants. By the will of Sir John, dated the 30th May,
1842, these appointments were ratified. On the 14th
July, in that year, the appellant, Florence Anna Maria
Stapleton Piers, married Count Louis Le Coat de Ker-
veguen, and en that occasion her portion was, in the
usual way, settled upon her. Sir John died in 1845,
leaving his widow and two daughters surviving.
The jointure to the widow had been conti-
nued, but the respondent refused to pay the two
sums of 2,0001. to the two appellants. When the
suit of 1836 was determined, Lord Plunkett, in
delivering judgment, said that " the marriage had been
so satisfactorily proved that he would refuse to direct an
issue to try its validity." The main fact upon which the
respondent relied was that the alleged marriage in 1815
had never taken place, and that the parties had not been
married until March 19, 1821, when it was celebrated
in Dublin, and that the appellants were illegitimate, in-
asmuch as they were born prior to the latter date. Be
also contended that the Marriage Act having applicabi-
lity to the Isle of Man, rendered all marriages in private
houses null and void, unless by special licence, under
the hand and seal of the Bishop of Sodor and Man.
When the suit was before the Court below, the apellants
amongst other things, prayed the Court to direct an is-
sue to try the validity of the marriage, and this prayer
the Lord Chancllor said he would grant, provided the
appellants were enabled to produce the Bishop of Sodor
and Man as a witness. In compliance with the direction
they given by his Lordship an applicati.‘,n was made on
the part of the appellants to the Right Rev. Prelate to
give evidence, but he declined to go over to Ireland for
that purpose, whereupon the Court below dismissed the

bill, but wahout costs, and a,,,,,z;inst that decree the pre-
sent apps al was brought.

Mr.Bethell and Mr. Glasse were hoard on Thursday
for the aprillants.

Mr. J. Parker, with whom was Mi. Goldsmid, Was
also partly heard for the ruspondent.
Mr. PARKER resumed his arguments to-day, and occu-
pied their Lordships the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
The Master of the Ri4lls sat in his Court in the Rolls'-
yard, Chancery-lane, to-day.

BURRELL V. MABERLEY.
The further -arguments in this part-heard case were
resumed to-day. The suit was instituted for the
purpose of establishing the vi ill of the late
Thomas Baltertield, and to carry the trusts thereof into
Thi lzi-rfidd, formerly of Reiburn,
in lb- eowity tot! at the date of hii will or
lie _Pharr,die to,, ichester, is the county of
Essex, by his will, dated the 20th of December, 1815,
gave several legacies, and among others, 1001. stock to
each of his twelve first cousins, eleven of whom he
named, eni the twelfth, Captain Thomas Alston Bran-
drett, he remarked, being then dead, he gave the bequest
intended for him to his children. The testator then gave
all his residuary real and personal estate to his wife for
life, including the house he then resided in in Colchester;
and then the will proceeds thus:—" And from and after
the death of my dear wife, and not before then, I give
full power to my executors, their hi.irs and assigns, to
collect all my property together, and sell the house and
other estates, and convert into money all my funded
property, and then pay the following legacies," and
he here enumerated them, " and then the whole of the
remainder of my property to be divided, share and share
alike, to my aforesaid twelve first cousins and their chil-
dren." The testator appointed Horatio Cool and James
Maberley executors of his will, along with his wife, and
died in the year 1816. The original bill was filed on
the 20th of February, 1825, to establish the will, and
carry out the trusts thereof, and a decree was made ac-
cordingly; but no construction was put upon the resi-
duary clause, whereby the property was disposed of after
the death of the wife, the tenant for life. The wife be-
ing now dead, and the period for putting a construction
upon that clause having therefore arrived, the cause
came on again upon further directions; it appeared that
the twelfth first cousin, Captain Brandrett, had died,
leaving issue in the testator's life, and that the other
eleven were living at his death. It appeared, also,
that seven of these eleven died without issue, and
four had children, and that several died in the lifetime
of the tenant for life. The property was not sold nor
converted; and the questions now were, first, whether
there was an imperative trust for conversion; second,
whether the period of vesting was at the death of the
testator or of the tenant for life; and third, whether the
children of the first cousins took by substitution for their
parents by way of purchase, or whether the term was
used as a record of limitation.

Mr. KENYON PARKER replied this morning at some
length, and _ _

The MASTER of the ROLLS postponed his judgment.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour was occupied during the morning in hear-
ing bankrupt petitions.

EX PARTE WALKER, IN RE SANGAR.
Mr. OSBORNE said this was the petition of Mr. Charles
F. Walker, who is the treasurer of a certain charitable
society, established at Bristol, and it prayed that the
petitioner might go in and prove a debt under the fiat.
The bankrupt was one of the committee of an asylum at
Bristol, called the Poor Orphan Girls' Asylum, and it
seemed he took an active part in the management of the
charity, and acted as a sort of honorary secretary to the
committee. On several occasions it happened that he
reported at meetings of the committee that certain cre-
ditors of the institution required to be paid, and there•
upo❑ the committee drew cheques in favour of those
parties, and the bankrupt took possession of these
cheques for the purpose of discharging those debts. In'
stead of doing that he appropriated the whole or the
greater part of the moneys to his own use. He also re-
ceived certain subscriptions from the members of the
institution, which he did not account for. He (Mr.
Osborne) believed that co much as 1,0001. had been ap•
pro priated by the bankrupt to his awn use. Under
these circumstances, the petitioner prayed to be per-
mitted to go in and prove in respect of this breach of
trust.

His HONOUR—What has he done with the money?
Mr. lisnoaNE said he had appropriated it to Nil
own use.

His HONOUR—Is the petitioner the treasurer of the
institution?

Mr. OSBORNE replied that he was ; and
His HoNoun said he: thought the petitioner, in that
capacity, might be permitted to prove such a debt as be
might be able to establish.

(Before Vice- Chancellor WianAm.)
ROBINSON V. SHEFFIELD.
His HONOUR was occupied during the morning itl
hearing the further arguments of counsel in this cause,
which was a motion to appoint a receiver, and had been
partly heard on a previous day.
Mr. P. Wood was counsel for the plaintiff, and the
Solicitor-General represented the defendant.
The Vice-Chancellor of England did not sit, there
being no cause on his paper ready for hearing.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissi over SHEPHERD.)
THE JENNY LIND STEAMER—IN RE CHEETHAM.
This bankrupt had carried on business as a steam-boat
builder at Frindsbury, near Rochester.
Mr. DUNCAN appeared to support a claim for a Mr.
Cunningham, for 7001. for damages by way of penalty for
non-performance of a contract in completing a steam-
boat called the Jenny Lind, bankrupt having entered
into an agreement to complete or forfeit 101. per day ,
His HONOUR did not think the form of the deed
showed any liquidated damages, and therefore the proof
must be rejected.
Mr. DUNCAN said, under these circumstances the
right would survive, although the certificate should be
obtained. He then tendered a proof for 2001. for monies
advanced beyond the value of the work done, but it IP-
peared that the bankrupt had expended 4454 more than
he had received.

The bankrupt then passed his examination.

SURREY SESSIONS.—(THIS DAY.)
The adjourned sessions for the county of Surrey cosi'
menced this morning, at the Court House, Newington
Causeway, before J. W. Freshfield, Esq., and a full
bench of magistrates.
The Calendar contains the names of 105 prisoners.
The CHAIRMAN addressed the grand jury, who retired
to fulfil their duties.
James Munday, a pauper, belonging to Guildford,
was indicted for breaking out of the Guildford union
and stealing therefrom a quantity of wearing apparel,
the property of the guardians.
The prisoner had been for some time an inmate of the
union, and retained a very bad character, having be
,_l3
several times in prisons for various offences. At the
latter end of February he broke out of the house, takiEig
with him the property mentioned in the indictment.
The: jury found the prisoner Guilty; and the Court
sentenced him to seven years' transportation.

MARLBRO'-STREET—( THIS DAY)'
Richard Sullivan, John Creasy, and Michael Callaghan
were charged before Mr. Bingham with being drunk and
riotous, and assaulting the police while in the execution
of their duty. _ _ _

Police-constable, C 2, stated that at about half-past two
o'clock on Sunday morning he was on duty in Oxford'
street, when his attention was called to the prisoners,
who were much in liquor, quarrelling with some wonaell•
Witness desired them to go away peaceably, when tile /f
commenced fighting with each other, and made u 913 cia
the most abominable language. Witness again requeste
them to leave the spot, when he was assailed by Sullivarit
who came behind him and knocked him down; the other/
two prisoners then fell upon him and struck him sever
times. Witness called out for assistance, when the Pri-
soners ran away. They were eventually stopped
bf
another constable and taken to the station-house-
Police-constable, D 208, s 'id he was on duty 14
Oxford-street on Sunday morning, when he heard 1
r 11,%
witness call out for assistance. On his way to the s,s
he met the three prisoners, and detained them till it,
brother constable came up, when they conveyed them
the station-house.
The prisoners, who denied the charge of assault, were
severally committed for a month to the House of COr
rection, with bard labour.

A well-dressed man, who gave the name of John MI;
grove, was placed before Mr. Bingham, charged WI,
having indecently assaulted police-constable A 73, vvhl
on duty in Hyde•park on Friday night.
The charge (which is not fit to be reported) havilig
been proved, Mr. BINGHAM committed the prisoner for
trial.

THE ACADIA STEAMER.
The following letter has been received at Lloyd's till-
morning:—
AMSTERDAM, MARCH 16.—The Acadia steamer,
Jackson, from Liverpool to Bremen, which was on shore
on the Outer Grounds near Terschelling, 12th instant,
was got off on the following day by the assistance 19t
pilots, and taken into Terschelling, having sustained
slight damage, and will promptly be able to put to set)
again.

GENERAL SIR JOSEPH THACHWELL. Wre
serve, in the columns of a Sunday contemporary, a comma
munication from an angry and not over-wise corre;
spondent, who impugns the correctness of a statenielit
lately made by us, respecting the distinguished officed
above-named, in which we spoke of him as " the sec°7bl 0
in command." The writer, though introduced to
public as one " whose authority is unimpeachaTine
only betrays his extreme haste and carelessness. ,1%,
had taken the trouble to consult an East Indian o°`l,-;
gal) Directory, he would have found the rank of jt",
major-generals of the army of the Punjaub thus „lb
signated :—Sir Joseph Thackwell, major. general, 14b
January, 1837 ; Sir Walter Gilbert, major general, 21;„..
June, 1838; W. S. Whish, snajor-general, 234 Nove'_',..
ber, 1841. We were, consequently, perfectly corn i 6
in stating that Sir Joseph Thackwell was " second
command" under Lord Gough.—Chronicle.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY.--A further e--,-
ten
sion of this company's line through Lincolnshire, ffe,
Lincoln to Gainsborough, 16 miles, is ready for 00%135
As it will be the first railway into Gainsborough, 11'4,
expected that the townspeople will have a holiday
honour of the event. Mr. Cubitt, the engineer, h
now commencing this company's extension line throng'

Newark.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE, AND EAST
CASHlRE.—Captain Laws and Mr. Hacking met at 560.
ford station this (Saturday) morning, and came to 8,0
amicable arrangement of matters in dispute between tuf
two companies. We therefore hope we shall not heat'
a repetition of Monday's f
-0-y.--Alanchester Examen"


of the

boo
Lt the
,akiog

were
Cyr'