The Sun.
London, England, 1836-01-19 00:00:00

LEIGH V. LEIGH.

Mr. HUMFREY showed cause why the service of the writ
of right should not be set aside. The writ was first pur-
chased on the 29th of December, 1834 ; it was re-sealed
from time to time, and the return day altered under the
following circumstances :—Ejectments had been pending
against the tenant before the writ issued, and a bill was
filed in the Vice-Chancellor's Court, with an allegation of
twenty years' adverse possession, to restrain the ejectments.
A demurrer was taken to this bill on the part of the de-
mandant, which was allowed by the Vice-Chancellor, but
on an appeal to the Lords Commissioners was by them over-
ruled. The writs of right were re-sealed. The affidavit
which he held in his hand stated that it was the practice of
the Cursitor's office to make out only one prcecipe when
the writs were re-sealed. Unless the demandant had done
this he would have been totally barred of all remedy.
The rule was made absolute, it being the opinion of the
Court that if this re-sealing were allowed to prevent the
operation of the statute, which was intended for the benefit
of tenants, it would be in effect abrogating the Act of Par-
liament.

CONSISTORY COURT.-MONDAY.

RAY V. SHERWOOD AND RAY, FALSELY CALLED SHERWOOD.

Dr. LUSHINGTON gave judgment to-day in this case,
which was a suit for nullity of marriage on the ground of
incest, the parties being within the prohibited degrees. In
June, 1835, Emma Sarah Ray was married to Mr. Sher-
wood, who had been previously, in July, 1827, married to
Rachel Ray, her sister, who died in a few years after her
marriage. A libel had been given in on the part of Mr.
Robert Ray, who promoted the suit, alleging him to be the
father of Emma Sarah Ray, and as such interested in the
legitimacy or illegitimacy of her children. In addition to
'the common averments, and those respecting the marriage
of Emma Ray, the marriage of her sister in 1827, and the
death of the latter in 1834, the libel contained further al-
legations that the marriage was clandestine, and that the
parties were not resident in the parish in which they were
married ; but upon these points he did not conceive that the
Court was called upon to express any opinion • because, in the
first place, he knew not what effect the clandestinity of the
marriage could have upon the question which he had to de-
cide.; and because, in the second place, it had been completely
settled that the non-residence of the parties could not with
propriety be pleaded in a suit for nullity of marriage ; nor did
he think that the Court could take into its consideration the
expedition with which the father had attempted to avail him-
self of his right. He did not mean to say that any of
these were unfit originally to have been pleaded; but it was
the duty of the Court to look only at those facts which
could guide it to a just conclusion upon the merits of the
whole case. The additional articles pleaded the property
to which Emma Sarah Ray was entitled. The libel had
been very fully, laboriously, and learnedly argued. After
going at length into the case, the Learned Judge said there
had been points raised in the case, which ought not to have
biased the judgment of the Court, viz.—that there was no
cohabitation between the parties, and that there was an in-
clination on the part of the wife to withdraw from the con-
nection. It was true that if that marriage could have been
set aside, it might have been productive of much happiness ;
but it was also equally true that he was bound to decide
the case upon the principles of the law, without reference
to any such circumstances. He had now gone at some
length into the various reasons which had induced him to
come to the conclusion against Mr. Ray. He was under
the necessity of rejecting the allegation.