The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-23 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

This being the Third Seal, his Honour the VICE-CHAN.
CELLOR took motions to.day, but up to the period of our
Reporter leaving no case of public importance had been brought
before the Court. In the course of the morning his Honour
stated that he thought very little good would be done by his sit.
ting to-morrow, it being appointed for her Majesty's Drawing.
room, and many of the gentlemen of the Bar having to
attend the House of Lords on a part heard appeal. It was
therefore his intention not to sit on that day, unless the gen.
tlemen of the Bar wished it.

Mr. PEPYS, on behalf of the Bar, observed that many of
them would necessarily be absent, and (of course little or no
business would be effectually proceeded with if the Court sat.

It was then arranged that the Court should not sit to-morrow,
and proceed with motions on Saturday.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

HEALY v. JAGGERS.

This was an issue from Chancery, to try the validity of a
marriage and the legitimacy of a child. The case was begun
yesterday morning, occupied the Court the whole day, and was
only concluded this day at half.past one o'clock.

The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. Sergeant ADAMS,
asststed by Mr. HtrrcHesom ; Sergeants SPAN/LIE and AN-
DREWS, and Mr. JUSTICE appeared for the defendant.
The facts of the case, as detailed, appeared to be as fol.
lows :—Mrs. Healy, previous to the year 1819, was living with
a Major Frazer in the neighbourhood of Hemel Hempstead,
by whom she had three children. Mr. Healy there became ac-
quainted with her, and offered to marry her, he being only be.
tween 17 and 18, and she upwards of 26. He had several Chris.
tian names, but used, and was commonly known by, the name
of Henry, to which he had no right; but he liked it better than
Luke, his proper one. In 1819 he published the banns between
them in St. James's, Westminster, and there took the name of
Henry; and it was one of the questions to be tried whether the
marriage was legal or net. It further appeared that the parties did
not live together at first, nor did it appear whether they ever did,
but in 1822 Mr. Healy was living in London with a person of
the name of Hoare, as his wife; his wife followed him to Lon.
don, and lodged at 139, Holborn, while Healy lived at 249, in the
same street. In the November of 1822 it was proved by
Mrs. Healy's landlady, that Mr.Healy was in the habit of calling
every day upon his wife, and stopping for hours with her
alone. He died early in 1823, and his wife was delivered
of a daughter in July of the same year, who is the
plaintiff in this action, her father having left considerable pro..
perty, which is claimed by Jaggers, who was Healy's brother.
in.law.

For the defence a number of witnesses swore that while he
lived in London, from what they knew of him, he could not
possibly have been with his wife in either October or November ;
and it was attempted to be proved that she had led for the three
years she had been married a very loose life. This, however,
failed, for the Jury, after his Lordship (Mr. Baron BAILEY) had
summed up, returned a verdict for the plaintiff on both issues,
thereby establishing the validity of the marriage and the legiti.
macy of the child.

In order to expedite the business of the Court, it had
been arranged that Mr. Baron GURNEY should sit and take
causes in the Equity Chamber; but after his Lordship and the
Jury were in readiness, it was found out that by the Act of
Parliament two Courts could not sit at the same time.