The Sun.
London, England, 1826-02-27 00:00:00

CONSISTORY COURT, FEn.2b.

JOHN CHARLES, EARL Or PoßTsMouTri, BY HIS CO3J.,
MITTEE, AGAINST DIARY ANN HANSON, PALSIELY
CALLINO HERsELE THE cOUrrrEs*op port•ramOUTH..
This was an application to the Court for a decree that the
costs might be taxed as against the husband, in a suit insti•
tilted, under an order of the Courtuf Chancery, to annul the
marriage between Lord Portsmouth and Miss Mary Ann ,Han-
eon, on the ground of fraud and circumvention practised agaiost
his Lordship by the said Mary Ann Hanson and John Hanson,
her lather ; and for the providing of. funds for, the defence of
the suit 'on the part of the wife, out of the estate.
Dr. LUSHINOTON and Dr. PltKanti, for the lion. Henry
Fellowes,. the Committee of the person and estate Of the Earl,
argued that he could not he called upon to provide funds. his
controul over the estate was strictly limited by the Court of
Chancery which had directed that theleasortable costs of the
proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts ehould 'be paid out of
the surplus income of Lord Portsmouth (after allowing t3,000t.
per'annum for his Lordship's maintenance, and 1,5001. to Lady
Portsmouth for herself and child) with the approbation of
Master Courtenay. Lady Portsmouth was therefore not desti-
tnte of funds; and if they were insufficient, application shoUld
be-made to the Court of Chancery, Mr. FelloWes could not
appropriate one farthing without the
.special. direction of the
Maker. In a case In the Arches Court, about live years back,
that of" iimith and Smith,” where'a suit was brought by the
Committee, of a lunatic to have the marriege set aside, the
Court required that funds should lie provided, fur the defence
on the part of the wife; hut in that Cale, the wife who had no
means, nor was it alleged that she had been guilty of fraud or
of entrapping the lunatic into marriage. In that case, more,
over, the Committee had an object of his' own, and vroaecuted
the suit oat of hie own fundS.• In the present case Mr. Henry
Fellowes was no real party in the cause : he was not next of
kin, and was entitled to expect no benefit. The general rule
was, indeed, that the funds should be provided by the husband ;
but there was a distinction between casts' of divorce and cases
like the present, where the marriage was void r:b Here'
the 'husband wan in a state of imbecility, and had been en-
trapped into a marriage whilst in the handi of his 'cantitientiel
solicitor and- trustee. -

Sir CiIItISTOPIIER ROBINSON OtifiCtVCil, that if the costs
were due on principle, it did not appear how the Coutt could
help decreeing them I it was bound to take• care that justice
was not stayed in the suit. flowever grave the charges against
the parties might be, they must, on the principle of the Court,
be as yet presumed innocent.
Dr. LusuntoTox thought that the application should go to
another Court, because the facts and evidence in the case were
within the ktiowledge of that Court. A decision of this Court
might occasion delay, or stop the suit altogether. The learned
counsel remarked, *haven unreasonable delay had already been
occasioned by the other side.

The Couirr made some observations upon the impropriety
of obstructing the progress of this suit by formal delays.
• Dr. Jr.NrrEn, for Lady Portsmouth, contended that this
was one of the ordinary cases, and no exception could be made
to the rule of the Court, —unless. •it could be shown that the
wife had sufficient Muds to defray her costs as well as her
maintenance: it was not enough to say that she bad a sepit-
rate income, unless it exceeded • what was neeessary for her
support. The Court of Chancery had not designated the wife
as other than " Lady Portsmouth," anti it was the rule Of thili
Court temper premmere pro mutriownio, Lord Portsmouth
had a large income ; Lady Portsmouth but L'2oo/.' for herself,
and 8001. for her child ; and when the Court saw that ithe bad
to defend herself against-a, suit to set aside a marriage after ll
years of cohabitation had passed before it *as questioned—
%Alen it saw the libel, consisting of 50 articles, the number oe
witnesses, 15, whose evidence extended from 1799 to 11124--it
must think it would he unjust to take front Lady Portsmouth
the meeni she asked. The case of " Smith and Smith" was
exactly similar to the present i and Dr. Lushington was in
error in stating that fraud was not charged Hereinit was
charged, though not in icrnanir. The Learned (Aiunsel con-
eluded by defendinr.himself and the proctor for the. cOonnittee
from the animadversions of the Court and • Dr. Imithingtoti, in
respect to the imputed delay. In tt case of such importance,
it was incumbent on the advisers of Lady Portsmouth to
take some little time to consult as to the propriety of ap-
pealing against the admission of the libel.- NOt the least,,
unreasonable delay had occurred ; and neither -he (Dr. Jen-
tier) nor the proctor had dune-more or. less than their duty to
their client, and they had not deserved the animadversion of
the Court.

Sir Cl. Bony.; sox expressed himself at considerable length.
In the course of his oliServations, he s,tid, that although Mr.
Fellowes might have no tunas, he might still be legally liable
to demands ; this was nn inconvenience to which he was
ex-
posed In his present capacity ; and although the Court might
endeavour to qualify its order so as as to obviate it, yet the
objection did not justify the Court in rejecting the prayer of
the application' anti in throwing upon Lady Portsmouth the
necessity of going to the Court of Chancery to get a special
order. - She would there be a.suitor for an allOwance for which
she could offer no vouchers, and the Lord Chancellor must
necessarily reject her application. The Court would sit on
Thursday next, and would reserve the form and principle of its
order till then.