The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-06 00:00:00

THE SUN', LONDON, SATURDA MORI

twelve, at the,_ Court of Bankruptcy. Lackington,
offiCial assignee
S. Bartram, St. Mary-street, Whitechapel, April 8, at
twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official
assignee.
J. Gear, professor of music, Howland-street, Fitzroy-
square, April 10, as half-past eleven, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Lackington, official assignee.
'l. Hollis, mariner, West Cowes,-Isle of Wight, April
13, at elcv,n, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards,
official assignee.
W. R. Chatek, farmer, Blackmore Essex, April 16, at
half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Lacking-
tun, official assignee.
C. Sterck, green-grocer, Grosvenor-row, Pimlico,
April 16, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Lacking-
ton, official assignee.
J. Slade, carventer, Pexlay-heath, Kent, April 16, at
the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee.
T. Bate, land agent, Neath, Glamorganshire, April
12, at half-past eleven. at the Bristol District Court.
Acraman official assignee.
W. Griffiths, grocer, Whitford, FPntshire, April 10,
at one, at the Liverpool District Court. Morgan, official

assignee.
P. Lucas, commission agent, Congleton, Cheshire,
April 9, at twelve, at the Manchester District Cout.
Hobson, official assignee. •
G. Taylor, butcher, Lanends, Cheshire, April 9, at
one, at the Manchester District Court. Pott, official
assignee.
J. MB fruiterer, Rochdale, April 10, at twelve, at
the Manchester District-Court. -Hobson, official assignee.
'l'. Jackson and J. Jackson, bobbin and skewer turners,
Ashtow-under-Lyne, April 10, at twelve, at the' Man-
chester District Court. Fraser, official assignee.
J. Turner, shoemaker, Longdendale, Cheshire, April
10, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court. Stan-
way, official assignee..
R. Hill, baker, Cheltenham, April 11, at half-past one,
at the Bristol Distr:ct Court. Acratnan, official assignee.
J. T. Gritfizlv, victualler, Llanelly, Carmarthenstiire,
April 12, at half past riven, at the Bristol District
Court. Miller, official assignee.
D. Gregory, coal-merchant, Cheltenham, April 11; at
half-past twelve, at the Bristol District Court. Acra-
man, official assignee.
T.-Hughes, farmer, Newland, Gloucestershire, Apr
11, at twelve, at the Bristol District Court: A:crarnan,
official assignee.
M. S. PnillipY butcher, Suffolk-parade, Cheltenham,
April 11, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court.
Acraman, official assignee, Bristol.
- bilinchew,carpentQr, Bilston, Staffordshire, April 11,
at &oven, at the Birmingham District Court. Bittleston,
official assignee.
NV. Dickenson, baker, Nottingham, April 12, at half-
past eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. Valpy,
official assignee.
E. Weatherstone, plumber, Cheltenham, April 11, at
half past eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Miller,
official assignee. -
J. Kerrison, provision dealer, Hyde, Cheshire, April
10, at one, at the Manchester District. Court. Pott, °lli-
eial as=ignee.
• 'r. Hooper, Richmond, Lancashire, April 10, at twelve,
at the Manchester District Court. Stanway, official
assignee.

DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-stree`.
H. Gouger and D. Hunter, merchants, Great
Winchester-street, City, April 26, at two—T. H.
Woo:I, draper, Pentonville, April 26, at halt-past
one—F. Barry, miller, Bye, Sussex, April 26, at twelve
—J. Ov :rington, plumber. Arundel, Sussex, April 26,
at twelve—J. Judd and W. Judd, wealmen, Southamp-
ton, April 26, at one—J. Turner, cab!net-maker, Grange
place, Hoxtun, April 26, at half-past one.
In the Country.
J. Wilson, draper, NevveAstle-upon- Tyne, April 30, at
eleven, at, the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court—
J. Leech, ironmonger, Newcastle-upon-Tvne, May 2,
at one, at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne District Court—
Samuel, and James Ih.tler, iren-founders,
Warwick, April 27, eleven, at the Birmingham District
Court—J. Burford and.W: W. Davies, iron-merchants,
Bristol. April 30, at eleVen, at the Bristol District Court
—W. Fletcher, oilman, Birmingham, May 1, at one, at
the Birmingham District Court.
CERTIFICAI ES to be granted, unless cause be shown'
to the contrary, on the day herein-mentioned.
E. Minister, tailor, Argyll -place,_ Regent-street,
April 26—. R. L. Sturtevant, soap-m4nufacturer, Church-
street, Bethnal-green, April 26—Jost-ph, John, and
William Forster, bankers, Carlisle, April 29—J. Wilson,
draper, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, April 29--31. Murphy,
grocer, Liverpool, April 26—M. Borer, toy-manufac-
turer, Birmingham, May 3—T. Bentley, cloth-ma-
nufacturer, Rawden, Yorkshire,- April 26 —T.
Parr, plumber, Liverpool, April 26—W. and I.
Dunnage, plumbers, Tooley-street, April 26—T. Alford,
licensed victualler, Harrow-road, Paddington, April 26
—C. Webb, apothecary, Oxford, April 26—J. H. Perry •
man, bookseller, Birmingham', April 26—T. 0. Hazard
and H. Bingham, merchants, Sheffield, April 26—G.
Pile and W. J. B. Staunton, wine-merchants, Bishops-
gate-street, April 26.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
J. K. Murphy and W. H.'Dutton, Hull—G. S. Archer
and W. H. Cane, surgeons, Notting-bill—R. Addison
and T. F. Beale, music-sellers, Regent-street—R. Stuart,
J. J. Smith, and S. Aekroyd, stove-manufacturers,
Sheffield (co far as regards S. Ackroyd)--J. Lord and
J. Whitworth, grocers, Burnley, Lancashire—S. Ward,
D. Gomersall, W. Gomersall, and J. Rayner, fulling
millers, Leeds (so far as regards S. Ward)—T. Oldham
and J. Williams, coal-merchants, Cheltenham—W.
Woods and M. Jordan, Ossulston-street, St. Pancras—
M. and W. Shackleton, letter-press printers, Manchester.
—3l. and S. I. Samson, commission-agents, Manchester
—C. Macauley and F. 11. Halpen, ship-brokers, Liver-
pool—J. Mush and R. D. Clarke, paper-stainers, Man-
chester—J. F. Moore,- T. F. Moore, and J. Moore, iron-
merchants, Manchester—E. T. Meredith and H. Walker,
surgeons, Ludlow—W. Lakin and IV. Fletcher, soap-
manufacturers, Tipton, Stafibrdshire—S. Wray and L.
Day, apothecaries, Salisbury-square--G. Wilson and M.
Clegg, Liverpool—J. Capel and T. S. Parry, coal-mer-
chants—G. Proctor and W. H. Trow, lucifer-match ma-
nufacturers, Leeds—W. Tarbuck and _W. Henderson,
starch-manufacturers, Liverpool—T. Acester, E. Green,
and R. Dales, linen-drapers, York.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
JAMES SCARTH, commission-agent, Aberdeen,
April 10, and May 1, at two, at the Lemon-tree Tavern,
Aberdeen. •
WALTER DICKSON, millwright, Jedburgh, April
11, and MaY 2, at eleven, at the Spread Eagle Inn,
Jedburgh.
JOHN MURRAY, ship-owner, Dunfermline, April
11, and May 2, at twelve, at the Spire Hotel, Dun-
fermline.
DAVID MOWBRAY, jeweller, Edinburgh, April 8,
and April 29, at two, at the wiiring-chambers of George
Gray, W.S., Edinburgh.
WILLIAM3I PURSELL, cabinet-maker, Dunbar,
April 11, and May 2, at two, at the writing-chambers
of William Watson, Haddington;

PRICE OF SUGAR.
The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, for the
week ending April 2, 1844, • is 345. Sid. per cwt., exclusive
of the Duties of Customs paid or payable thereon on the im-
portation thereof into Great Britain. -

. . . .
THE SUICIDE IN FLEET-STREET.
On Thursday the inquiry connected with this mys-
terious case, and adjourned from Monday lest, was
resumed before W. Payne, Esq., City Coroner, at
A.nderton's Hotel, Fleet-street. - The inquiry related
to the death, of Mary Griffin (servant to Mr. scratch-
ley, surgeon, of 168, Fleet-street), who, it was alleged.
had destroyed herself by swallowing tincture of
opium on the morning of Sunday last. The evidence
on the former day tended to impress a belief that de-
ceased had been seduced by her master's brother, the
Rev. Charles James Scratchley, 8.A., now or late
curate of St. George's Chapel, Queen-square, Blooms-
bury ; and the evidence of the latter was given in a
somewhat contradictory manner, which kept the
matter in doubt, and hence the adjournment, fur the
purpose of a post mortem examination, and to procure
the attendance of relatives and of additional evidence.
"-At the inquiry on Thursday, Mr. Moxen, of the
Chancery bar, attended to watch the proceedings on
behalf of the Rev. Gentleman. Among the additional
evidence adduced was that of Mr. Lewis Day, sur-
geon, who had made the post rnortern examination,
who was of opinion death had ensued partly from the
poison and partly from the antimony administered as
an emetic.. Deceased was not pregnant, and, in Hs
opinion, had never borne a child, although she was
not a YiYgin.
Rebecca Griffin (sister of deceased), a person of '
lady-like manners and appearance, living at Canter-
bury, 'underwent a long examination, from which it I
appeared that her sister's real name was Charlotte,
and age 34. About twelve years since she bore a
child at steeple Ashton, by a man to whom she was
about being married. Subsequently, in about the
year 1835, she formed- an intimacy with Mr. Charles
Scratchley, then about nineteen years of age. They
went together to Paris, and lived in England as man
and wife, and the relatives of the latter thought they
were really married, and witness, under such impres-r
Sion, visited them at Pentonville ; but in about 1839
Mr. Scratchley, being then designed for the Church,
went to college for that purpose, Dr. Scratchley, the
father, having written to say that the connexion must
be dissolved before his son could enter into holy
orders. Some slight allowance was made to her, but
her mind was much distressed. Mr. Scratchley be-
haved kindly to her while she was living with him,
and the object of recommending her to his brother
was to give her a character for another situation.
Witness did not believe she was capable of commit-
ting robbery, but had latterly thought her mind im-
paired, and was consulted by Mr. Charles Scratchley
as to the propriety of her.being taken care of.
It further appeared that Mr. George Scratchley
was ignorant of the previous connection when de-
ceased came into his service, and also that deceased
had become of intemperate habits, and was accus-
tomed to converse and drink spirits with abandoned
females, although her conduct was proper while liv-
ing with Mr. Scratchley. She was, however, very.
desponding,
and generally so whenever the Reverend
Gentleman mine to stay at his brother's.
The inquiry
having lasted some hours,
The CORONER summed up, condemning the con-
tradictory evidence of the Rev. C. J. Scratchley, but
which *as done; no doubt, to get out of a difficulty.
She appeared affected in mind on the night of Sa-
turday, and certaixdi had not been kindly treated by
&luau who bad lived with her as her husband,, which

she must have felt; for the separation of five years ome of them are now undergoing the punishment
could not have extinguished her' feeling towards awarded to them. ,•
him. No doubt she had destroyed herself, and it • 19. Because the Noble and Learned Lords by whose
would be for the jury to say whether the conduct of opinion this judgment is affirmed, admit that they are
Mr. Scratchley had induced her to do so, and whe- ' obliged " to overrule authorities to which the greatest
thee she was in a state of temporary in sanity. respect is due ;" all the recent authorities are mni-
The jury, after nearly an hour's deliberation, re- formly in favour of the validity of the marriage in
turned the following verdict :—" We find the de- dispute ;—upon all questions it is desirable, that when
ceased, Charlotte Griffin; committed suicide whilst the law has once been considered settled by judicial
in a state cif temporary insanity, induced by the decision it should not be again disturbed; and this is
cruel and heartless-conduct of Mr. Chalms James particularly the case with respect to the law of mar•
Seratchley ; and we are compelled to express our riage, for the sake of honourable women and innocent
strong disapprobation of the flippant and unfeeling children. CAMPBELL.
manner in which Mr. Charles James Seratchley's
evidence was given on the night of Monday last."

ritisH MARRIAGE QUESTION.
LORD CAMPBELL'S PROTEST.
HOUSE OF LORDS, March 29.
THE QUEEN V. MILLTS.-WRIT OF ERROR.
The Order of the Day being read for the further
cons•deration of this cause, the House proceeded. to
take the same into consideration : and it being moved
to reverse.the judgment complained.of, the same was
objected to; and the question was put whether the
judgment complained of should be reversed. Lord
Cottenham and Lord Campbell. were appointed to
tell the number of the votes ; and upon report thereof
to the House it appeared that the votes were equal,
viz., two for reversing, and two for affirming. Where-.
upon, according to the ancient rule in the law, -semper
presumitur pro negante, it was determined in the
negative : therefore, the judgment of the Court below
was affirmed, and the record remitted.
Dissentient,
1. Because it appears by the special verdict that
George Millis, before his second marriage (the regu-
larity of which is not questioned), had been married
to Esther Graham by a Presbyterian minister, who
they believed had authority lawfully to marry them,
and that having intended to enter, and believing that
they had entered, into present marriage, Without con-
templating any further ceremony to complete their
marriage, they cohabited together as husband and
wife, and, there being no statute to affect the va-
lidity of such a marriage in Ireland, it is valid by the
common law of England, which is admitted to be the
law of Ireland upon this subject.
2. Because the only objection made to the validity
of this marriage is,. that it was not solemnised by a
priest episcopally orda'ned ; and by the common laW
of England it was not necessary to the validity of a
marriage that it should be solemnised by a priest,
although to be regular there are canons requiring
that it should be solemnised by a priest in the face of
the church.
3. Because it is admitted that before the Reforma-
tion- the validity of marriages was a matter of eccle-
siastical cognizance in England, as well as in the rest
of Europe, and that by. the canon law regulating
marriage all over the 'continent of Europe prior to
the Council of Trent, the presence of a priest was
not necessary to a valid marriage, and this law must
necessarily have prevailed in England, all ecclesias-
tics, members of the Western Church, being governed
by the same laws, and the appeal from their decisions
being to Rome as the Court of last resort.
4. Because, the presumption being in favour of the
validity of this marriage, the onus lies upon those
who question it to prove its invalidity, and there is
no instance in the annals of the law of England in
which parties having intended to enter into present
matrimony, and believed they had done so, and had
lived together as man and wife, their marriage has
been held invalid on the ground that it was not so-
lemnised by a priest in orders, and the necessity for
the presence of a priest in orders to prevent the mar-
riage from being invalid is not laid down by any
institutional writer treating of this branch of the law
of England.
.5. Because the relation constituted between George
Millis and Esther Graham by their marriage and co-
habitation as husband and. _wife is materially different
from that subsisting between a inan and a wernan who
have merely contracted to marry per verba presenti
tempore, meaning that they shall be irrevocably en-
gaged to each other, but that a marriage ceremony
shall be performed between them before they live to-
gether as husband and wile ' • and the marriage • be-
tween George Millis and Esther Graham cannot pro-
perly be considefed as a mere "pre-contract," which,
according to all the statutes and decisions upon the
subject, was an executory engagement.
6. Because it is admitted that, where a man and
woman entered into marriage, and lived together as
husband and wife, without the intervention of a priest,
the Church in England always considered the relation
between them verum matrimonium, insomuch as they
could not. be proceeded against for fornication, that
they could only be compelled to celebrate the existing
marriage in the face of the Church, and that, if
either of them before such celebration, cohabited with
anotheia this cohabitation was censured as adultery.;
and because the commerce between the parties so
married without the intervention of a priest being
acknowledged by the Church to be that of husband
andwife, the issue could not be :considere‘Lillegit-
imate; and, applying this decisive test to try the
validity of the marriage, it must have been considered.

valid.
7. Because, of the only two cases leading to a con
trary conclusion, which occurred in the reign of
Edward 1., we have no satisfactory statement, and
they cannot be at all 'relied upon; for they would
show that a marriage solemnised by the priest,
of the parish, or by a bishop in a private dwelling,
was a nullity ; this being entirely contrary- to the
doctrine now contended for on behalf of the defendant,
which allows, that for all purposes such a marriage
before Lord hardwicke's Act in the year 1753 would
have been as valid as if celebrated in the face of the
Church.
•
8. Because the other authorities relied upon may
be reconciled to the doctrine that by the common law
of England, if parties were, so minded, they might
have entered into a valid marriage without the inter-
vention of a priest, and, at any rate, are greatly out-
weighed by the authorities on the other side.
9. Because, although marriage according to the
doctrine prevailing when the common law took its
some sacraments might be ad-
intervention of a priest, and
canonists of undoubted
lointriiingsiisentie‘pyreraedssa,v,i.3si,at
hcl
down
b y
authority that the sacrament of marriage might be
administered by the parties to each other reciprocally.
10. Because the prevalence of the notion of the ne-
cessity for the intervention of a priest may well.be
accounted for from the canons of the Church in favour
of regular marriages, and from the laudable custom
of parties generally wishing to join in a religious
ceremony when they enter into such a solemn en-
gagement.
11. Because the position that a marriage to be valid
presbyterunt sanctis
tohrda
t mustin
siibhnu
sac: beenectohn
sell
i i lei solemnisedtruornrl,
tisto disproved
a validP marriage might be
by the admission,
celebrated by a deacon, and because the explanation
of this circumstance, that the law was changed at the
Reformation, is quite unsatisfactory, as the Church
had no power to alter the law of marriage, and never
attempted by any canon to alter it, and no power to
solemnise marriage is conferred upon a deacon by
the Act of Uniformity, or any other legislative enact-
ment. •
12. Because the class of clergymen who are al-
leged to be necessary and sufficient for the solemnisa-
tion of marriage not being confined to clergymen
ordained by bishops of the Church of England, but
including all who, according to the opinion of theolo-
gians, are to be considered apostolically ordained, and
amongst others Roman Catholic priests before they
have renounced the errors of the Chunh of Rome,
and been admitted into the Church of England, no
certain rule is laid down for the guidance of the public
with respect to those who are duly qualified
solemnise marriage between English subjects in coun
tries where the English statutes respecting marriages
do not prevail.
Because it is admitted on behalf of the defen-
dant, that a marriage solemnised by a person be-
lieved' by- the parties to be a Friest in episcopal
orders was valid, although in truth he was not in
Orders, while it is • contended that the marriage
solemnised by a Presbyterian minister whom the par-
ties believed to be sufficiently.authorisedto solemnise
it, is a nullity.
14. 139 cause the marriages of Quakers and Jews,
excepted from the operation of Lord Hardwicice's
Act, have ever been considered to be, and'are,
and their validity is wholly inconsistent with the
position, that there can be no valid marriage without
the intervention 'of.a priest in orders.
•=- 15. Because this position is again disproved by the
doctrine which judges of the highest authority have
often laid down and which is not disputed, that in
countries where the -attendance of such a priest can-
not be obtained, a valid and regular marriage may
be entered into by the consent of parties before wit-

neases.
16. Because the Legislature, in passing Acti of t
Parliament respecting marriages in Ireland and India,
1
the prior validity of which depended upon the same.
principles as the validity of the marriage in question,
has DECLARED them to be valid, thereby admitting
their prior validity.
17. Because it had been considered by all legal
writers of authority in England for a century that by
the common law.of England the consent of the parties
without the intervention of a priest was sufficient to
constitute a valid though not a regular marriage ;
and this doctrine being authoritatively promulgated
by Lord Stowell in the case of " Dalrymple v. Dal-
rymple," had been adopted by every judge in Eng-
land who subsequently had occasion to lay down the
law upon the subject, including Lord Ellenborough,
Lord Tenterden, Lord Chief Justice Gibbs, Sir J.
Nichol', Sir H. Jenner, and Lord Eldon.
18. Because there have been many convictions for
bigamy in Ireland where the first marriage was
solemnised by a Presbyterian minister, although both
parties were not Dissenters, and the persons so con-
' victed have been sentenced to transportation, and