The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-08 00:00:00

WILSON V. HUMPHREY.

Mr. PLATT showed cause against a rule obtained by Mr.
Erle, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict
in his favour should not be set aside, and a new trial had.
It was an action of trespass against the late Sheriff of Lon-
don, for seizing the plaintiff's goods under a ji. fa. directed
against the goods of James Wilson. The cause was tried
in the sittings after last term, before Lord Abinger.—Rule
absolute.

ARCHCES' COURT.

TONGUE V. ALLEN, FALSELY CALLED TONGUE.-

JUDGMENT.

This was an appeal from the Consistorial Court of Lon-
don, and involved a question of considerable importance as
regarded the construction of the New Marriage Act, rela-
tive to the false publication of banns. The case was ar-
gued on the appeal on a former Court day.
Sir HERBERT JENNER this day gave judgment. He
stated that this was an appeal from the decision of the
Court below, in a suit promoted by the father of a minor to
set aside a marriage, on the ground of undue publication of
banns. The minor was the son of Edward Toligue, a con-
siderable landed proprietor in Staffordshire. The son was
born in 1815 ; and in 1828, being placed at school near
Birmingham, he was known and passed as Croxall, though
his name was Edward Croxall Tongue. Mrs. Allen, the
party proceeded against, was described as a widow, of the
age of thirty-five, and acted as housekeeper to her father,
who was the keeper of the school. In 1833 Edward
Croxall Tongue and Mrs. Allen agreed to be married by
banns, which were published at St. Michael's, Bristol, the
names being described as Edward Tongue and Mary Ann
Allen, spinster. The marriage was solemnized on the 26th
February, the young man afterwards returning to the
school as a pupil, and Mrs. Allen continuing to act as
housekeeper. Edward Croxall Tongue went home as usual,
at the holidays, without Mrs. Allen going with him, not one
of the family of the young man knowing that the marriage
had taken place. From information, however, the father
had received, the marriage was discovered, and he sent his
son abroad, and took proceedings to set aside the marriage.
The young man, at the time of the marriage, was between
seventeen and eighteen years of age, and Mrs. Allen was a
widow between thirty-four and thirty-five years of age.
The question, therefore, the Court had to consider was,
whether, under the existing marriage law, this was a valid
marriage. Under the old law it would undoubtedly have
been invalid ; the knowledge of either party to an undue
publication of banns being necessary to set aside a marriage.
But the great alteration in the law was in the 22d section
of the new Act, which was to the effect that "if any
persons shall knowingly and wilfully intermarry without
due publication of banns, the marriage of such persons
shall be null and void to all intents and purposes."
Now, therefore, the mere fact of an undue publication
of banns was not sufficient to invalidate a marriage, it
being necessary that both parties must have a knowledge of
an undue publication, though the party making an undue
publication may be the person who wished to commit fraud.
The Court then had to consider three questions ; first, whe-
ther there had been a marriage ; secondly, whether there
had been an undue publication of banns ; and thirdly, whe-
ther both parties were cognizant of such undue publication.
There could be no doubt of the fact of the marriage and
of undue publication of banns, the object of which was to
conceal the circumstance from the father. In all these
cases positive proof could not be obtained of a concert be-
tween the parties to obtain an undue publication. The
Legislature could never have intended that such concert
between the parties should be fully proved. Under all the
circumstances, therefore, the Court could have no doubt or
hesitation in pronouncing the marriage null and void, the
parties having having contracted the marriage knowingly
and wilfully with undue publication of banns, within the
meaning of the present Marriage Act.

STAGE COACHES.—The last Act of Parliament
respecting stage coaches does not award any penalty to the
informer.