Star.
London, England, 1822-12-02 00:00:00

ARCHES COURT, NOVEMBER 30.

The Registrar havingannounced that in the case
of " Bailee and Barlee," he had received a letter
from the Iligh Sheriff of Suffolk, containing a " re•
presentation" in respect of what had fallen from his
Honour the Dean of the Arches and Judge of this
coat; on a former day, suggesting the propriety of
that Lady's statements of ill usage in the prison being

• •
inquired into, was directed bT the Cast to wad the
alma. This representation purpo(ted hbe email
the High Sheriff and Magistrates of the county of
Suffolk, in answer to the Court's suggestion of 'the
16th of November; and contained on the part of the
Sheriff a total contradiction of Mrs. Barlee's com-
plaint as to her treatment in Ipswich jail (wbere she
now is,. Miring been committed for a contempt of
Court), and a denial of Mr. Barlee's having been ever
harboured in the prison by the jailer, except on one,
occasion of his calling on the latter, to whom he was
unknown, and when he remained only five minutes
within the walls: it was also stated that no pistol had
ever been fired at Mrs. Barlees--that her food was of
the same description as that of all the other priso-
ners, the bread and cheese, in particular, being good
and wholeiorne, as had appeared upon minute in-
quiries and examination—that Mrs. Barlee had been
repeatedly offered money by her trustees, kc.
The ./unoit observed, that this must be the last ir-
regularity that could be permitted ; and, on the ap-
plication of Dr. Lushiagton, permitted copies of the
documents and letters which have been brought into
Court in this matter within the present Session, to be
taken by the Proctor for Mr. Barlee.

BLYTHE (FORMERLY SODEN) V. BLYTHE.
This case has been once or twice before our Readers.
It was originally a suit of nullity of Marriage, by
`reason of want of legal consent, promoted in the Con-
sistory Court of London by Samuel Blythe, the na-
tural and lawful fatherof Frederick Augustus Blythe,
a minor, against Sarah Soden, falsely called Blythe.
The Learned Judge of the Court below, on the 28th
of June last, pronounced-the said marriage null and
void ; and Dr. Lushington, who was' of Counsel for
the wife, immediately asserted an appeal, with a
view to any benefit that might be taken under the
provisions of the then pending new Marriage Act.
Subsequent. to the passing of that sentence, and on
the 22d of July last, the new Marriage Act received
the Royal assent. The appeal was lodged in this
Court and duly prosecuted. On the part of Mrs.
Blythe an allegation was now given in, pleading the
new Marriage Act, and certain facts which, Dr.
Lushington contended, brought the case so within
the provisions of the Act, as to found his prayer that
the sentence of the Court below might be reversed.
The allegation in question consisted of: two articles
only; the first pleading the new Marriage Act—and
the other, that Frederick' Augustus Blythe and his
wife Sarah did continue to live together till the
commencement of the cause in the Consistory
Court, and had only suspended their cohabitation in
consequence of those proceedings ; and therefore that
Mrs. Blythe was entitled to have the sentence re-
versed on the authority of the second clause (3 Geo.
IV. c.-75),* which is in these words :—" And be it
further enacted, that in all cases of marriage had and
solemnized by license before the passing of this Act,
without any such consent as is required by so much
of the said Statute as is heieinbefore recited, and
where the parties shall have continued to live toge-
ther as husband and wife till the death of one of them,
or till the passing of this Act; or shall only have dis-
continued their cohabitation for the purpose of or
during the pending of any proceedings touching the
validity of such marriage; such marriage, if not
otherwise invalid, shall be deemed to be good and
valid to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
Dr. SwAsey and Dr. JENNEIt argued against the
admission of this allegation, contending that the
pretended marriage in this case-having been declared
null and void. by a competent tribunal, under the
then existing law, could not now be reversed by the
superior Court. ND protest was ever entered, nor
could any haie ever been sustained, against the juris-
diction in question, pending the*.proceedings ; a:id
consequently, though that jurisdiction might be said
to have been suspended by reason of the appeal, so
far as to take away from it any power of enforcing
its sentence previously to the result of the appeal
being published, the mere fact of appeal could not
take away the jurisdiction. As to the terms of clause
2d, they evidently applied not to the present case,
which was not one contemplated by the framers of
the Act : for where of two parties one was to he
bound by the Statute, and the other to take a benefit
under it, it surely could nut have been the intention
of the Legislature to confer that benefit on the party
which had acted " in fraudem legis," as the law stood
at the time. The Learned Counsel submitted that
this allegation ought not to be admitted to proof.
Dr. Lusti I X GTON. felt that it was not necessary for
him to urge that there were not many anomalies in
the Act : but this Cpurt, and all the other Courts,
would of course endeavour to arrive as nearly as pos-
sible at the true intent and Meaning of the Legisla-
ture. Now he contended that the obligation con-
tained in the second clause was.meant by the Legis-
lature to include those who, at the time of passing
the Act, were in a course of litigation in suits like
the present. A strong measure this,, undoubtedly ;
but that it was adopted with the view or repressing
the evils which were every day occurring under the
old marriage law (26 George 11. c. the .preamble
of the Act sufficiently skewed; for after reciting the
objects and enactments of the 26th of George 11. it
proceeded thus—" And whereas great evils and. in-
justice have arisen from such provisions, for remedy
hereof be it enacted," &c. This was, therefore, in
every respect a remedial Statute, expressly casting a
censure on the old law. The Learned Counsel con-
cluded his argument by contending that his party
was entitled to the benefit of the second clause, and
that the allegation ought to be adanitted.
Sir Joan Nionot.r. observed, that the new Mar-
riage Act passed about a month after the sentence of
the Court below. The present allegation pleaded the
Actin one article, and certain facts in the other,
which, it was contended, brought the case within the
provisions of the Act—namely, that these parties, F.
A. Blythe and Sarah Blythe, lived together until the
institution of proceedings in the Consistory Court, as
husband and wife, and only discontinued their coha-
bitation pending the trial of the validity of their mar-
riage. Now, had the Act of Parliament stopped at
the second clause,* would seem that the case did
come within the Statute : but the very next clause,
the third,. was in these words—" Provided always,
nd be it enacted, that nothing in this Act contained
shall extend to render valid any marriage declared
invalid by any Court of anmpetent jurisdiction befitre
the passing -of this Act, nor any marriage where
either of tic parties shall at any time afterwards
during the life of the other party have lawfully inter-
: married with amother person." Now this marriage.