The Sun.
London, England, 1812-12-15 00:00:00

COURT OF ARCHES, DOCTORS' COMMONS.

COOKE V. BROWNING, FALSELY CALLED COOKE.
This was 'a proceeding at the instance of -I`Jr.
James Sutton Cooke; of the parish of 'St. 'Sepul-
chre, -London, for a sentence of the Court,. decla-
ratory af the invalidity of his marriage with ,a
Miss Jane Browning, of Basting-ley, -in Kent, 'on
the ground ()Ibis Minority at the time, and- a'
want. of legal consent. -
It- appeared that. Mr. Cooke. was born in the
month of April, 1780, and that the marriage took•
place by license,' in the-month of September; 1799;
when be was little more than' 19 years of 'age;
'that his father, (who was-then living). was utter•-
ly ignorant of it; till aft:er it had taken place,- and
then expressed his displeasure in- the strangest
terms, consoling., himself at the same time with the
reflection, that the absence df his consent rendered
the marriage a mere nullity, and that he continu-
ed in these sentiments, and the Communication
of them to his relatives and friends to the time of
his death. •
- These circuinstances were detai!ed in the evi-
dence of several relatives and acquaintances of the
parties, supported by the production 'ot an entry.
of the minor's birth, made-at the time, in a family
bible, the Certificates of his baptism aramarriage,
and- the original documents, authorising the grant
of the license, in which he Was likewise described-.
As•being above the age- of- twenty-one. It was
likewise stated, that he is•now-a prisoner _upon a
charge of bigamy, founded Upon the' fact- of his
haring contracted a second marriage, subsequent
to the one in question ; :and that he was more par-
ticularly .desirons of,ohtaining the sentence of the •
Court, as it would avail him. so -materially in his
defence. •
The defendant's Counsel admitted the 3111 it-len-
cy of the evidence arldneed to prove the filets
of the minority; marriage, and non-consent ; but
relied upon it likewise to sustain his objection,
that-there *as a failure-of yroofas to the plaintiff's'
ldentity. •
Sir- JOHN Nlctiam. ohterved, that the peculiar
situation of the plaintiff; though perhaps ,not so
distinctly apparent from' the evidence as to come
within the judicial cognizance.of- the Court, was
nevertheless sufficient to induceit to n>gard the
present proceeding with a _very- jealous eye. -I -
collusiqn Nwas to be suspected in any ease, it was
surely in one like this ;• the .common -dictates or
humanity Were, in all'probability, suEcient to*
induce the lady, against wbem tbe presentprOeeed-
in g- was 'directed, to 'lend' herself towards. facilitat-
ing-its succeSs4 great and.painful -as the sacrifice
might be-to herself. -The, •Court must; therefore;
come to the Consideration of the circumstances. of
the case; and. must be. • impressed with the
necessity of a'rigisl.scotiny; and ,regard-the pro- •
ceediug astbesilg principally-of 'an es parte nature
lietben ricaspititlated the• facts' detailed.- in evi-'
dence,4uld was:of opinion that .4be- proof was un-
usually strong. in support of their, that there
was.-no foundation: for the abjection to the.. proof
of identity : therefore sined' the Sentence de-
elaratory:oF ~the nullity ,olthe.niarriage.- •