The Sun.
London, England, 1821-12-08 00:00:00

issue. We understand the defendatltintendg to 011 A few molt
witnesses this inbrnirig; *hen the SOLlerronTl,44T RA I: will!
reply, and before the don of another day tig- ease will raosts
likely be disposed of.—The Court did not bre:4k up until after
seven o'clock.

CONSISTORY COURT,•Dr.ctunrit 7.

OFFICE OF THE JUDGE, V. DTI. CVARItt.

On the sitting of the Court this morning, the Rei.. defendant
being in attendance, the artieles exhibited against him lry.Arch-
deacon Woollaston were read by Dr. Adams.
These articles set forth die alleged contumacy of the defendant
towards the. Archdeacon, in refusing him admission nt the great
south door ; as likewise at the chancel door of the parish church
of Great Waltham, Essex, over which the promoter-is Arch-
deacon, and the defendant Vicar, on Thesday ilio 12th day of
June, 1821, when the promoter, -by virtue of his' office, at....
tended at the Spring Visitation thereby opposing and-obstruct-
ing him in the execution of his duty aforesaid. These articles
concluded with the prayer of the promoter, that this Court
would adjudge and punish the defendant as the law directs
and further, that the Court would restrain the defendant from
the repetition of such of in future; and that lie should be
directed to pay the costs of this•suit.
Dr. CLARKE here offered to read an Address to the Court in
Latin ; but was interrupted by the Judge, who begged to cat
to his notice the expediency that the line of defence which the
Rev. defendant meant to advance, should be considered by him,
with the assistance of Counsel; wheth;.r his interest was to make
an obstinate defence, or to adopt the milder course of excuse or
apology.
Dr.•C.4...auxE=ln other Courts I have been misled by Pro-
fessional Gentlemen, and therefore I think T can myaelf best
explain my motives and feelings to the Court.
The Ji!DGE.--Be assured you will not be misled here.
Dr. CLARKE—Certainly not, for this is one of the most
learneil COurts in .the kingdom ; and I have only. to say,. Sir
-Christopher, that r meant no thsresp-et to the Archdeacon.
• Dr. SwAnE Y, as Counsel for .the Arclidearlm, intimated, that
as Dr. C. lie understood, was prepared to deliver in an nffirrne-
tive issue, the Learned Coiinsesl was auti;9l:ts,Nl to state. that it
was earnestly wished, on the,part of the Archdeacon, that the
judgment of the Court ini!;dit be as as the law- Wou ld s 4
mit under tho following iiiretunstances.
Dr. CLARKE—Sir Christopher, I beg to plead an affirmative
issue, since it is the wish of both parties the Court should pro-
ceed to sentence.

Sir C. ROBINSON, in passing sentence, observed, the Court
should attend to the wish of the promoter, in pronouncing its
judgment with as much leniency as the policy of the•law would
admit. The offencekharged was undoubtedly one of enormity,
in a clergyman especially, whose duty it was, not only to assist,:
hut invoke assistance to.the authority of the Archdeacon. The •
object was, that the Archdeacon should inspect the church, for
the purpose of seeing what repairs were wanting, and to remedy .
any such neglect towards preserving the public property thert
If the clergyman refused to afford such facilities, it. teas not to
be expected that parochial persons Would; without goins into.
the formality of the articles, suppose that the offence had in this"
case proceeded from error, rather than any deliberate disrespect-
to the authority of the Archdeacon. The Court would content
itself (without inquiring into the full extent of - punishment
which the policy of the law awarded in such case). with pro—
nouncing- that' the defendant be admonished to refrain from
committing any such contempt in future ; and that he do fur—
tiler pay the costs of the present proceeding.

ROTTEN V. COCKLE, FALSELY CALLING HERSELF
ROTTEN.

This was a suit of nullity of Marriage, promoted by E.
Rotten, Esq., against Sarah Cockle, otherwise Rotten, his wife,'
on-the ground of minority.on his part, and non-consent of John
Rotten, his father.

The marriage, it appeared, took place et the parish church of
St. Ann's, Westminster, on the 2Oth of October, IPI6, by license,
upon the oath of the husband that he was then of the age of 21
years, and upwards, whereas :t appeared, by evidence of certifi-
cate of baptism, and other proofs, that he was of tlte age of lg•
years only. The fact.of such marriage 'haling bean soh-Jr:air:-
eel without the knowledge.or consent of the said John Rotten,
Esq., the father; and his having expiessed much grief and dis-
leasure at the same being communicated to him a month after.
This was deposed to by the affidavits of several witnesses, and,
there being no defence offered on the part of the wife, the Court
proceeded to pass sentence.
Sir C. ROBINSON ebSgrS'ea, NS was a promediog under
the Act of Parliament, which directS, that all parties under the
age of 21, net being a. widow or widower, who shall marry by
license, without consent of parent or other lawful guardian,
such marriage shall be null and void to all intents aI purn-ses
whatsoever. If any thing appeared to sheer, that the party
seeking his remedywi the present instance bad been guilty of
• such perversion of conduct as to take advantage of en act of
liberate perjury on his part; in swearing tt:t.l lie wag upwards.
of 21, the Court would not be restrained from animadVerting
in strong terms, on an attempt, which Was coutrivi:.4. to e.buso
the Jaw of• this country, in taking advantage of the Act cf
• Parliament, to void such marriage ; but such being the law,
no part of his conduct, or its being his own act, could tuakethis
marriage good, from his being a minor, and wanting tl:e cc.n-
sent of a lawful guardian. Linder these circumst9nces, how-
ever, which had Keen satisfactorily proved, that this Mar-
_ riage had been solemnised contrary to the Act of Parliament,
the Court had no alternative but to prenbance such marriag,t:,.
null and void.

:SIAL-ND V. RIAUXT)

This was a suit of divorce, brought by Susannah Mauna;
'against her husband, James Maund, by reason of adulterY.
Sir C. ROBINSON commented upon the evidence at consitler-
able length and observed, that upon the whole of the circiim-
stantial evidence disclosed, together with inferential conclusions
operating on the.minda of witnesses, such forensic inference tin
the place of positive evidence) might be drawn, upon which the
Court could come to the conclusion, that the wife had establish-
ed her case sufficiently to be entitled to tire relief prayed.
The Court accordingly pronounced for divorce.