The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-10 00:00:00

BIGAMY.

Mr. Culiwoon' moved that a person in custody on a charge
of bigamy might be brought up by
.Habeas Corpus, to be dis-
charged on bail. The prisoner admitted the offence, but the
ground upon which he prayed to be admitted to hail was, that
he had been once before apprehended on .the same charge, but
the parties had not tilt:tight proper to persevere in the prosecu-
tion ; but now they had apprehended him a second time, and
were proceeding under tite old charge. He trusted this was a
sufficient ground for the interposition of the Court.
Mr. Justice H OLIW YD, the only Judge in Court when the
motion was made,;thought tins was not a case in which the Court
could interfere.—Writ refused. . . _

• .
At half-past two o'clock, the new Lord Mayor, atterded.by
the usual procession, entered the Court to record his Warrant
of Attorney. The Common Serjeant officiated fOr the Recorder,
and invited the Judge to cline at the liuildhall with the Lord
Nlayor and ;Sheriffs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 10.
SMITH AND OTHERS V. BELL.

Sergeant Pth.t. moved for a rule to spew cause why the vet.-
diet given for the plaintiffs in this cause should not be set aside,.
and a new trial granted. The Learned Sergeant stated. three
objections against the verdict ; the first was, that Andrew
Armit had been examined as a witness fur the plaintiff's,
although it was alleged on the record that he was one of
the parties for whose benefit the policy of insurance on
which the action was brought had been effected. It was true,
it was stated that he had executed a release to the plaintin,
but on this point, as well as on that of the action -being
brought in the name, of The
,plaintiffs, there was a most ex-.
traordinary document, which would probably cause the Court

a vie* the whale. matter in a new light. MI. ridgc
t
man, of Mansion4inuie...place, Bait India Agent, who is -ow:-
of Atte plaintiffs, had trade an affidavit, in which he states
that the action brought in the names of himself and part-
ners, without hiS consent or kno;Vledge, and without the, con-
sent or knowledge Of any of his pa.ftnerS, ai he verily believed,
and that he never heard Of said actidu until after the trial, and
believes that his said partners, the other elaintiffs, had hot heard
of its having been brought until after said trial. . .
The second objection wasl that evidence offered on the
part of the plaintiff, to prove that the weather the ship; had
met on the voyage would not have injured her tiSd she 'been
sea-worthy at the time of sailing, had been rejected .by the
Learned Judge who.tried the cause, on the ground that the
only knowledge the witness, who was not on board, had of
the weather, was obtained from the ship's log-book, which
might have been imperfectly kept.
The third objection was, that the Jury found for a total loss,
with right of salvage, although charged by the Learned Judge
that there was not a total loss, as there had been no abandon..
mcnt. The Learned Sergeant stated that there were 19 similar,
actions depending on the fate of this verdict.
The Solicitor for the Motion stated that after Mr. Justice
Park, before whom the cause was tried, had left the Court, the
Jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiffs for 22 per cent. when.
a Gentleman who was in Court, and who had not been examined
in the cause, gave them some information, on which they changed
their verdict to 3-f per cent.
CHIEF JUSTICE—Take your rule, and let that fact be stated
by affidavit.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. O.

Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON took his seat as Judge of
this Court, in the room of the Right Hon. Lord STOWELL,
resigned. •
.

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE.

DAVIDSON, OTHERWISE BOODEN, FALSELY CALLED
CABLES, V. CABLES.
This was a suit of nullity brought by. the wife against the
husband, on the ground of her own illegitimacy, minority„and
non consent of guardian (notwithstanding the cursent ()Cher
mother, who was present at the marriage), there being no legal
guardian appointed by the Court of Chancery.
It appeared from the evidence 'in the cause, that Pranced,
Caries, otherwise Davidson, otherwise Boodeh, the party pros
muting this suit, was the illegitimate daughter of Margarette..
Augusta Davidson, spinster, who lived as housekeeper with
Major Booden, of East Blacheter, in Sussex; that in or about
the year 1779, the said housekeeper was observed bythe.neigh-
hours to increase in bulk, and on the tit!' day of August in that
year, was delivered of a female child, which was afterwards ac-
knowledged by Major Booden as his daughter, and brought un
in his house under his own eye. By the will of the deceased,
Major B. which was proved in 1796, he bequeathed the whole
of his property to Augusta Davidson, spinster, and in reversion •
to his natpral daughter by the said Augusta, the whole of his
freehold and personal estates, appointing the mother sole exe-
cutrix and administratrix.

The marriage in question was solemnized by license at St.
George's Church, Hanover-square, in 1798, between Mr. Caries'
and Frances llooden (the mother, Augusta Davidson, being
present), upon the affidavit of the mother and husband that the
wife was then under 19 years of age. The parties, it appeared,
had cohabited together for 23 years, but it did not appear that
there had been any issue of the marriage.
Dr. JENNER contended, that here was sufficient proof of mi-
nority, illegitimacy and non-consent of lawful guardian, so as
to establish the requisite facts that such marriage was contrary
to the Act of Parliament, and therefore prayed a declaratory
sentence of the Court that such marriage according to law was
null and void.

Drs. SWARM'S" and PiuttimouE took objections to a decla-
ratory sentence being passed, on the ground that the mother waB
present consenting to the marriage, and which she believed to
have been solemnized under every legal requisite. It was fur-
ther contended that the identity of the party promoting the suit
was not sufficiently proved.
Sir C. Itconissom was of opinion that the facts were suffi-
ciently established in evidence to call for a declaratory sentence
of the Court, which was, that the marriage in question being
without consent of lawful guardian, and with an illegitimate
minor was, by the provisions of the Act of Parliament, of no
validity, and therefore the Court pronounced the said mainaga
null and void.

• EXPLOSION OF GUNPOWDEIt.—An Inhabitant
of Bromley, Middlesex, desires us to state, that
the account communicated, under the above title,

to our own and several other Morning Papers, is
considerably indebted to the embellisher for
several of its most striking circumstances. It is
true that a Gentleman's servant carelessly suffer-
ed about two pounds of powder to explode in the
kitchen, by which the windows of that room and
one or two panes more in the house were broken ;
but the kitchen being large, and the doors open,
the effect of the explosion was much less than it
might otherwise have been. The man himself,
ho was the only person hurt, suffered provi-
dentially but little ; and it is hoped will be able
to go about his usual work in less than a week.—
(Morning Paper.)