The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-21 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jury 20

Mr. Justice OARELXE presided to-day in this Court, instead
if the Lord Chief Justice 13insteadEsT. The only case tried involved
matters of account between the parties, during the years inter.
vening. between 1805 and 1820, and had no public interest
whatever.

CONSISTOItY COURT, JuLT 20
HULME v. HULSIE.

Iht LtysitiN 0 TON8111(101);tthiS WAS a suit for divorce, pro-
mated by Mrs. Huhu° against her husband, in consequence of
cruelty and adultery practised by hltn. The parties Were mar-
ried iu January, 1819, and . they cohabited together until the
latter end of J an u ary , I 820, when they separated, in consequence
of the repeated acts of cruelty exercised by 3lr. Hulme towards
his wife. The charge of adultery was alleged to have been con-
summated subsequent to the separation. .
Dr. .1 Essr: ADA:us, on behalf of Alr. flulme, submitted that,
according to the evidence produted, there was no satisfactory
conclusion to be drawn that the charge of cruelty and adultery
had beep substantiated. . ,
tieDt..e,.i
wt. ueria,telt: )I:l7Lopteceodlitt:ltittlg-21etit'ablesctohrt'cdhuacitgeosi wmerr.eilruloul

that be frequently applied towards her epithets of a very op- •
wobrious description; that at various times he threatened her •
Wen at one time be seined 1 red-hot poker, and swore he would
knee( her brain*. out; and at another time her cries of "111 un-
der 1" brought the servants into her bed-ronm, where Mr.
Iltame watieseeti brandishing a large knife, and Swearing he
would murder her. This•conduct was repeated at a time when
Mrs. Hillthe was, in a very dangerous state of health, froth a
recent ennfinemente and•tended much to increase her indispa- •
aition ; in consequence of such treatment she had been obliged
to exhibit articles of the peace against her husband; and lee
(Dr. Lushington) thought the charge'pf cruelty was, therefore,
put beyond-all question. its to the charge of 'adultery,- it was •
proved,by: several Witnesses, that while Mr. nubile was land-
lord of the 'Three Cornpessee publie-house in Brick-lane, he
cohabited with a woman whom he always called" Ann," and
who generally called herself Airs. Heinle. - • '
Dr. JESSE ARAMS aubmitted, that the cruelty was -not tut-
ficiently proved; it consisted of mere general threats and.mee •
• naees, used by a Man of an irritable and passionate' terniter to, •
wards his wife, and not of that nature to call on the Court for
a divorce.
Sir ett RIRTOPITPIT HOJIINSON Said he was satisfied that the
libel was proved in all its parts, both of cruelty and adultery ;
the parties cohabited together only a year, during' which time
they had one child, and it appeared that for nearly all that
time the husband had exercise d his brutal conduct towards his
.wife.. It appeared lie eves always quarrelling with her, 'threat-
ening her life with a red.hot poker at one time, anct.with
knife at another; frequently swearing with dreadful ostehceia
would pull her cut of be I, and other acts, which were certainly
acts Of cruelty ; the charge of adultery seas also proved, and
therefore the Court deereel for the divorce as prayed for,
FAGG V. SERJEANT, OTHERWISE LORD, OTHERWISE
FARRINGTON, FALSELY CALLING HEnsrtr FAGG.
This was a cause of nullity of marriage, by reason of undue
publication of banns, in consequence of the assumption of a
false, or unaccustomed name of the pretended wife, against
whom the suit was promoted by Fagg, the husband.' [By the
new Alarriage-Act, (the Act of the 2d Oto. IV.) the old
Marriage Law was left in respect of marriages by bruins in fieli •
force, in all that regards true and accurate publication of
christian and surnames of parties, &c. And therefore, the old
law having declared that in every case, where there shall be a
defect of these particulars, such Marriage shall be ipso. Act.)
null anti void. Tie same consequence,' it scents, still enure%
under similar elm ni entices.]
The substance of the case, ees we collected it from the libel,
is this—Harriet Sergeant, otherwise Lord,. &c., the daughter
of William Sergeant anti Dinah, his wifC, of the parish of.
West Chiltington, in the county of Sussex, was born in 1798 ;
and baptized on the 15th of November,. of that, year., by the
name of " Harriet only ; and an entry of such baptism was
then made in the register-book of baptisms of the staid parish..
'ln the year 1820, Ths. Fagg (the eon, it was stated, of an opu-
lent coatli-masten became actin:tinted with Harriet Sergeant,
then residing in East-street, Kennington-cross, and passing
by the name of Mrs. Lord. She represented herself to be ;tin
wife of a Mr. Walter Lord, who bad married her, she said,
and afterwards deserted her; and from this period till a vary
.short time preceding her marriage with Mr. Fagg, en the 3d
of June, 100, she went by no other name than Lord." A
very little time before the event just mentioned, she informed
Mr. Fagg that her maiden name was " Fatrington ;" and that
her marriage with Walter Lord wits not binding, hecautie, as sts
had learned from good authority, he had been married previoUsto
,her own union with him, to a lady in Spain.. The libel went on to
plead, that under such representations-Fagg allowed himself to
be persuaded tutuarry the party on the. day aforesaid, at the pa..
rith church of St. Mary, Rotherhithe. The flth article pleaded
that, as soon as he. Fagg, discovered that the marriage he-
tween himself and Harriet Sergeant, otherwise Lord, &c. had
been had without any due publication of banns.he, some time in
June, 1023, withdrew himself from all further cohabitation with
her, and they bave ever since lived sepaatc and apart from one
.another. &prclitninaty article recited the clause of the Act of
the 20th Oeo. 11. (commonly called the Marriage .Act), Which
regulated, and still regulates marriages by banns, as to their
publication, &c. ; and the libel having set forth that Harriet
. Sergeant had been known for years before her pretended
marriage -with Fagg, by the name of " Lord" only, con-
cluded with the usual prayer. Annexed to the libel were
three exhibits, viz. an extract from the register-book of , bap.
tisms in the parish of West Chiltington, in the county of
Sussex ; another from, the banns-book of marriages of St.
%lary, Roth( etithe ; and another from the register-book of •
marriages of the seine mirth. 1.7p0n the litgl seven Witnesses •
were examined, and among them Wm. Sergeunt, the father Of
the party proceeded against ; Thomas Fagg, the father of the •
party, proponent ; anti W. Hind Lord, the latter of whom de-
posed that his deceased brother fortherly cohabited with Harriet
Sergeant; and that he, the witness, had, since that .brother's
quitting her, remonstrated with her on the illegality and impro-
priety of using his name ; to which remonstrances she had re-
plied by a threat of producing a certificate of her marriage with
• Lord, but this cic.ctiment she had not been able so to Produce.
There was no sort of evidence to show that she had ever assumed,
or was known by, the name of Farrington, prior to a date some-
what anterior to her marriage with Fagg; and alllrs. Alsgson,
who was a neighbour of hers, spoke to.the remarkable circutn-
stance of seeing her engaged in writing at a window a day or
two before elle became Mrs. Fagg; and to her replying, on
• being asked what she was about, that she was practising w
write her maiden nione. The witness asked. what that was
and being told by her "Farrhigton," remarked " that she never
knew or heard, that before."

On the part of Mrs. Fagg, no plea was yiven in.
Dr. SWAREY and Dr. JENNER, for AIL Fagg, submitted
that the evidence of identity and false publication was couplet:
.—.and that on account of the latter, the marriage must, upon
every principle,.be pronounced null and void.
Dr. LUSHINGTON and Dr. DODSON, contra, argued that
there was no evidence to thew that the name of Torrington had
not been as commonly used by this lady au that of Lord ; and
the clear rule to which the judgments of this Court had ever
adhered was, that that which was the name of the party by re-
putation was the name under which the banns ought to tkr
published; for inasmuch as the object of their publication wa'
to inform the world as well as the more immediate connexions.
of the parties who they were that were about to contract Ma-
liege; the designation by which they were best known mat be
most efficient for such •it purpose. So that it might happen that'
genuine names would make an invalid publication; andatistMi.
ed ones a good publication. The Learned Counsel complaine4
heavily of the manner in which the evidence in this cause ha
been taken,‘ and of the extraordinary meagreness and iscatitl.
neu with which the whole depositions had been rendered.—
They tardier objected, that the exhibits in the cause.were ay
sufficient testiniony to the matters in proof of which they were
brought in. The clergyman who married the parties, or Rt'n't
one who had been present at such marriagei-ought to have
been examined; and finally they submitted that there was
thing in the cause to found'the prayer of the party. •
1)r. it Swnre and Dr..1E1414m replied. ',
rd
onStkrh eefeetrilli InBg.ro7tllLECon court nt
ow dispenseB i ta
its sentences !tilt' lat if it "4"
rt 0 f
4,1 •
it would certainly reject this application on the
e
from
abtsFit:e
saaengh;gcbees.eerb
beut it en—the
casenkho ljusnee:,:iipittior
titfidsaci.italntiat
itelensh,dtt:liitibetitilsoilvte.tiiolnilaltyu::ll:lv,,ittiii,nil.lll..aeerviienvi:jestrr4tvcoinioia dtfol.ilnntt eshtaan
311171 d.
ennocwrt
hteeim imustlr eft:
otip4urtr:
j
of
ch
d
:Lrri
he name of I'rtrri
Mr.
al" as being her maiden nan,a to
ti marriage. The (tint cencurf--
wag
pos
ed
red
ce on
its:we,aesi sit counsel
great
pa:AP:
causes
fis4ll renal
eiownaweeoP;r:n:
inrawttu:3ol
ceubhailenfdiest
nntlitha:ckeortlerc 4sritl
bey •
iw2:ei
rt,
with
nnit(aieirist
idh
oeilana
do
tot
nemnisitootwihr more
rei
et
her;
,ett ni Iseashuri *ter:
itfu,od
eat
too
ls before
of
e
w. the Lauri,
lci
riety at
that defect by the introduction
,give judgment in the. WV:-
low on opportuniy •
iebnoulaltrilote public• t
oniwon tt
of
to coniiii
mencetnent of nOtt term.

PAIN AGAINST PAIN.
This wav II suit of separa. don by reason of cruelty and ad,itfi .: •
tern
pregent application was for an allotment of idiom y
pendent( We" to the lady. :After a desuitoiu
conversatiwi
fothrethtiledirw' hwohc°l:ittlarded3no426"w.l7...
al;nieuntw:trun'ikraotndhTex:txh''neputArnlogposeatillief:ito toss up • aiith his Learned 'Otad
for the odd .50/.—(l.augllten)
The Counsel for air. Pam conscnte‘to,make the i'llfirn?
3001. a-Lear, and the principal cause
• A great many other causes Orminot inteiest4ete ilbetat tagen,
and the Court rose at four o'clock.