Star.
London, England, 1830-05-01 00:00:00

MARLBOROUGH.STREET.

EITENSIWZ ROBlBERT.—Efixabeth Grey, a ACT% afft, WAS t.,—
terday charged with stealing two rings, two brooches, and a !rug
quantity of other articles, the propertj of her muter, :11t. Wm. Elk-.
a jeweller, Burlington Arcade. She was fully committed for trial.
CURIOUS CASE or BIGAMY.—On Thursday evening a fashion.
ably-dressed female, of the name of Sarah Barnard, was brough
before Mr. CortaxT by Avis, charged with having intern-writ.
with a gentleman of the name of Currey during the life of her forme:
husband.

Mr. Wooler attended for the defendant, and a solicitor on t:ir
part of the prosecution.
Mr. Barnard, a brother to the first husband, deposal that in
year 1805 the prisoner was married to his brother. After they had
been married about six months his brother, from some cause whir
he could not account for, went to sea, and for a period of fourtec.
years he had never heard whether he was living or dead : nor was
able to say at present if he were living. He knows the female to !,•
the same that was married to his brother.
Mr. Corctus—Were you present at the marriage ?
Witness—l was not.

Here three certificates were handed in to Mr. Conant relatin: t •
three different marriages which the female had contracted, nanah
the one of 1806, a subsequent one, the husband in which case
dead, and the one with the prosecutor, which took place upon th,
13th March, 1810, in the parish church of St. Mary, Newington.
Mr. Wooler—As you were not present at the marriage of y,t •
brother, you cannot say that this person is the same woman.
Witness-1 have no doubt as to her being the person.
Mr. IVooller—How do you know that they were married
Witness—Because I heard my brother say so, and also the f,
male. Independent of these circumstances I have seen my brother
and the prisoner in bed together.
Mr. IVooller--Seeing them in bed does nut prove the marriage.
Witness—They have both repeatedly stated that they wt::
married.

Mr. Wooller contended that there was no evidence to affect ti
female. That she had lived with a person of the name of Barnard
was very probable, but still that act did not prove her being • ntr.
tied woman; or if she were the other party had produced no ev:.
dents to show that Barnard was alive at the period when she eec.
tracted the marriage with Mr. Currey.
This observation of Mr. Wooller led to a long discussion, in the
course of which it was stated that the reason for this proceeding or:-
ginated from Mr. Currey refusing to pay the sum of 621. per year to
his wife for her maintenance. It appeared that after they had up..
rated, that Mr. Currey came into possession of property to the va.
lue of 40,0001. in the county of Sussex, and which led Mr.. Bar.
nard. alias Currey, to institute proceedings in the ecclesiastical cour:
for a maintenance. After a long-protracted cause, the above tour
ordered Mr. Currey to pay the above sum to the defendant for
her support, besides keeping a daughter which the female had by
him, as her husband, in clothes, and supporting net at school. Tilt
allowance to the female, however, has not been paid up regularly.
and a short time since the female sued out a writ, when Mr. Currey
I paid the amount claimed over to the sheriff of Sussex, in whose
hands the money is at present impounded to wait the decision et
the Court of King's Bench.
Upon these facts being stated, and the evidence being Wow:7
plete, 111 r. CONANT remanded the case ; at the same time
he would take bail for the appearance of Mrs. Barnard on Tuol;.:.
next.