The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-17 00:00:00

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR sat in his Court at West-
minster to-day, to give several judgments, and to
hear appeals.

ANDREWS V. LOCKWOOD.-JEDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morn-
ing in this case, which came before his Lordship in
November last year, upon appeal from the decision of
the Vice-Chancellor of England. The case was one
of a bill of revivor by the personal representative of
one of the defendants in a cause of " Lockwood v.
Abdy." The bill ruled the case had been heard, the
plaintiff's bill dismissed with costs, and that certain
documents were by consent to be delivered to the
defendants. Andrews had since died, the plaintiff in
the present suit being his personal representative, and
the bill prayed that the decree might be revived. To
this bill of revivor Lockwood, who was the party to
pay the costs, put in a plea that the documents or-
dered to be delivered had been delivered, and the de-
cree therefore being executed before the filing of the
plaintiff's bill, except in so far as respects the taxa-
tion and payment of costs, that was a bar to the bill,
and to all the relief thereby sought. The question
therefore was, whether upon the death of the party
who was to receive the costs a bill of revivor lay whin
nothing remained to be done under the decree but
the taxation and payment of costs. When the matter
Was argued before the Vice-Chancellor, his Honour
held that the plea was good, because the practice
Which prohibited the filing of a bill of revivor for
costs bad been too firmly established to admit of any
alteration on his authority. From that decision the
present appeal was brought. His Lordship, in giving
Judgment, said that two points were raised in this
ease—first, whether, in the case of a decree merely di-
recting the payment of costs, and the subsequent death
of the party to whom the costs were to be paid, the
Personal representative of the party to whom the
Costa were to be paid could revive the decree for the
Purpose of taking those costs. With respect to that
question, his Lordship entertained no doubt that he
e•uld, and it was unnecessary for him to say more
u_. Pen that paint. The second question was, whether
!be Bill of Revivor had properly raised the question
in that suit, and whether a plea could be maintained
against it, on the ground that it had not. The Vice-
Chancellor of England, on the case coming before
him, decided that such a plea could be maintained,
11::1 ordered it to be allowed. The Lord Chancellor
clearly of opinion that the allowance of the plea
of the court below was erroneous. The appeal, there-
fore, must be allowed.—Judgment below reversed.

MINOR V. MINOR—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
Case, which came before him nearly twelve months
ag°' upon appeal from the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor Knight Bruce, dismissing the bill of the
Plaintiff. The suit was instituted for the purpose of
coTpelling the defendant, who is the uncle of the
plaintiff, to account for certain sums which he
received as executor and trustee of his brother, and
lvh!ch. had not been handed over to the use of the
plaintiff. The Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, on
the case coming before him, and upon a review of the
!acts, was of opinion that the matters in dispute had
been made the subject of family arrangement to which
the plaintiff was a
of op. • party. His Lordship was clearly
mum that the decree of the Court below was
correct, and ordered the appeal to be dismissed with
costs.

WELLS V. HYDE.—JUDGMENT.
The Loan CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this
case, which also came before his Lordship upon
Ppeal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce. The bill was filed for the purpose of carrying
out the trusts of a deed of arrangement with certain
of the plaintiff's creditors. The defendant, by his
answer, raised a new issue, and the plaintiff pro-
ceeded to the hearing of the cause without asking for
leave to amend, but the Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce,
before the case coining before him, gave that
leave, and from that decision the defendant appealed.
His Lordship, after going at some length into the
easel stated his opinion clearly to be that the order
aPpealed from was wrong, and ordered it to be dis-
charged.
Atter some short discussion, at the suggestion of
his LORDSHIP, who stated that besides those into-day's
paper there were only four appeals ready for hearing,
" Was arranged that the case should stand in the
Paper for hearing after the appeals already set down.

EYRE V. GREEN.--JUDGMENT.
The LORD CMANCELLOR also gave judgment in
this Case, which was also an appeal from the decision
of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce. The only question
in the case was, whether a jointure to the widow of the
testator was chargeable on the real and copyhold estates,
or only on the real estate. The Court below decided
that it was chargeable on both, and from that decision
the present appeal was brought. His Lordship
ordered the appeal to be dismissed with costs.—Judg-
meat below affirmed.
IHR ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE CORPORATION OF

LUDLOW.
On the application of Mr. M. D. HILL, this case
Was ordered to stand on the paper on Friday for
argument.

AXE v. A
The further argumentsN
inDREWS this. part-heard appeal
occupied the court the remainder of the morning.

ROLLS' COUR.T.—( THIS DAY.)
MARTIN V. THE MARQUIS DE CROISMERE.
This cause came before the Court upon further
directions and costs. By a marriage settlement the
personal and real property of the defendants was sub-
ject to certain limitations, and a covenant Ind been
executed, to the effect that any property accruing to
the parties subsequently should be under the same
provisions. The Marchioness became possessed of
considerable real property, and the question at issue
was as to the mode in which the terms of that cove-
nant could be carried out, the Marquis being an alien,
and consequently incapable of inheriting the real
estate, and two of the. children of the marriage being
born abroad. The plaintiffs were the trustees to the
marriage settlement, and they prayed for a declara-
tion of the Court to enable them to carry out the
trust. The arguments being concluded,
The MASTER of the ROLLS postponed his judgment.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CIIANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England was
occupied the whole morning with the further argu-
tinLents in the part-heard case of Strother v. Dutton,
rue facts of which present no feature of interest except
to the parties concerned.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
IRE Qualm V. CUADWICK.--MARRYING A DECEASED
WIFE'S SISTER.
This was a writ of error upon a special verdict
which stated that on the 14th of Sept., 1845, James
Chadwick was married to Anne Fisher, and after-
wards on the 2d of March, 1846, at Manchester, to
Eliza Barton, the said Anne Fisher being still alive,
and the said verdict being to the effect that Anne
her was his lawful wife. The defendant had pre-
Nri.,ously married a sister of Fisher who was deceased.
zle was indicted for bigamy and discharged. The
matter was carried to this court.
Sir FITZROY KELLY said the question for the de-
cision of the court was, whether by the laws now in
larce, a marriage with a deceased wife's sister was
lawful or altogether unlawful and void. lle had to
submit to their Lordships in support of this rule, that
such a marriage was good and valid by the law of this
Country. The law of the realm, on the matter was
.(1r
.itained in two Acts of Parliament—the
.5 and 6
lliam IV., c. 54, and the 32 llenry VIII., c. 54.
the later Act enacted that all marriages solemnized
I_),efore the passing of the Act within the prohibited
geglees should not hereafter be annulled by any sea,

tence of the Ecclesiastical Court, except so far as re-
lated to any suit pending at the time of its_passing.
Then came the substantive enactment, that all mar-
riages hereafter celebrated by persons within the pro-
hibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity should
be absolutely null and void to all intents and purposes
whatsoever. Now the question at issue was simply,
whether marriage with a deceased wife's sister came
within the prohibited degrees of affinity. Prohibition
by what? By whom? It might be prohibited by
the laws of God, by the canons of the church or by
the common or statute law of the land. The 4 and 5
William IV. determined those marriages which came
within the prohibited degrees. The Act of Henry VIII.
he conceived, contained the whole law of England
on the subject, and presented to their Lordships this
important question ripe for their judgment. The
statute, which was passed in 1540, stated that marriage
might be contracted in the Church of England be-
tween parties if they were not prohibited by the law
of God or the law of the land. Therefore, all mar-
riages were lawful which were not against the law of
God as promulgated in the book of Leviticus. It
was right that he should state to the Court
that the happiness of tens of thousands of persons
depended upon the construction which might be put
upon this matter by the Court. Alarriage was an
institution enjoined by the Almighty, and was a
human tribunal to restrain the liberty given to
man by God ? Surely no. No human tribunal had
a right to place any restraint upon the natural desire
of man to enter into the institution of marriage,
unless the act was proved to be immoral, and against
the command of the Supreme Being, that man should
contract marriage of his own free choice. It might
be said to be unnatural far a young girl of 16 or 18
to marry a man of 80 years of age, and for ladies
of high rank to marry pot-boys, or for persons afflicted
with hereditary diseases to marry, yet the Legislature
did not interfere with such marriages; there was no
interference, except, perhaps, with royal marriages.
He contended, therefore, that the law must be largely
and liberally construed by their L vdships in favour
of the liberty of man. For 1,500 years before the
advent of our Saviour, the law, as set down in
Leviticus, had been practised without restraint or
censure by the Jews ; and up to the time be spoke
the practice had not fallen into disuetude, but
had been extensively followed. Some centuries ago
a Council of Bishops assembled in a small town in
Spain, and framed laws, forbidding clergymen to
marry, and commanding those who were married to
repudiate their wives, making laws, at the same time,
for the government (,f marriages for the future. But
they must not take the law from the dicta of
" Popes, priests, and councils," they must look at the
words of the Bible—for fallible man had commit-
ted, in dealing with the question, many
gross errors ; tor instance, these " Popes,
priests, and councils," had determined that it
was unlawful for a man to marry his seventh cousin.
But they must not take the book of Leviticus as a
perfect code of laws with respect to marriage—they
must seek for some interpretation of its meaning in
the natural feelings and dispositions of men. The
18th chapter of Leviticus stated that a man might
marry " those near of kin to him ;" whilst
the 21st chapter explained, that what was
meant by this was, that a man might
not marry his mother nor his sister, and
that a daughter might not marry her father or her
brother. There was no prohibition against a man
marrying his grandmother or his great-grandmother.
Such marriages were not forbidden, because they
were deemed too unnatural and extraordinary to be
possible. The words in the 16th verse of the same
chapter had been made the foundation of this pro-
hibition. " Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of
thy brother's wife : it is thy brother's nakedness."
Though a man was forbidden in these words to
marry his brother's widow, their Lordships could
not therefore consider them to import that a
man was forbidden to marry his deceased wife's
sister. He was at a loss to understand on what
ground, after the law of God had been practised for
4,000 years, it was sought to be impugned, and a
different import put upon it. If the passage he had
just quoted stood alone, it would be an absolute prohi-
bition ; but it did not stand alone. The Scripture
said further, "Thou shalt not marry thy wife's sister
in her lifetime to vex her," and it was
well known that Jacob married two sisters,
Rachel and Leah, and they were told that
during the life of his first wife his domestic tribula-
tion with the two waa great. Let the Court permit
him, without irreverence, to assume that the Bible
was an English Act of Parliament, would they in
that case hold that such a marriage was unlawful ?
The Jews of this and other countries had for thou-
sands of years married in this way, and no doubt
had been cast upon the validity of their contracts. It
was contended, on the other side, that the translation
of the Bible was incorrect, as the Hebrew and
Greek differed; and that in reality the Bible
was opposed to polygamy altogether. The marriage
of henry the Eighth with Catherine, his deceased
brother's wife, was deemed to be strictly in conformity
with the law of God, but it was subsequently an-
nulled by another Parliament, showing how inade-
quate man was to interpret properly the law of God.
Returns had been received from not more than one-
third of the kingdom, and they showed that since
the statute of William IV. upwards of 1,600 of these
marriages with deceased wife's sisters had been con-
tracted by nobles and poor men, clergymen, bar-
risters, officers in the army and navy ; and on a fair
calculation, the question of the legitimacy of the
5,000 of the issue of these marriages depended upon
the decision of the Court, and 500 petitions had been
presented to Parliament in favour of the passing of an
Act legalising all these marriages. The Bishop of Lan-
daff had interpreted the law of God as he (the Learned
Counsel) had stated it, although he doubted its expe-
diency. The Learned Counsel stated, that the fact
of the law of man having been altered four times since
the time of Henry VIII., showed that they should
rely solely in this matter on the law of God; and
having referred to a number of old statutes and autho-
rities, concluded by contending that the Court ought
to decide in his favour.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
The ATTORNEY• GENERAL made application to the
Court to have the case of Captain Denman (which is
appointed for a trial at bar), fixed for December Gth.
The grounds upon which he based his application
were that the attendance of a large number of officers
connected with the Government was required, and
that regulations had been made for their attendance
upon that day.
The COURT accordingly fixed Dec. 6 for the trial.