Star.
London, England, 1824-11-27 00:00:00

CONSISTORY COURT, NOV. 26.

MONTAGUE V. MONTAGUE.
Doctor ADDAMS said that George Conway Montague
having married Margaret Green Montague at Gretna
Green, in Scotland, in the year 1803, they cohabited
together for several years, having several children,
three of whom were now living. A citation had issued
in May last against the husband, for a separation by
reason of adultery. There were various proceedings
thereon, and on a recent occasion there was an applica-
tion made to the Court that two persons interested in
the result (they having, a reversionary interest in the
property of Mr. George Conway Montague), should be
cited to see the proceedings in the cause ; that applica-
tion was refused on the ground that the validity of the
marriage, which could alone affect them, might not be
contested or denied by Mr. Montague. The Proctor in
this case had put in the usual libel, pleading the validity
if the marriage, and had given in four exhibits there-
with in support of it, the admission of which he under-
stood was objected to.
Doctor ARNOLD objected to the admission of the libel,
and contended that the exhibits should not be re-
:eived as legal evidence. The libel pleaded that the
marriage was contracted according to the law of Scct•
land ; then recited the different forms by which mar-
riage is celebrated. The first article stated that " the
mai riage was contracted by the parties at Gretna
Green, in Scotland, and that they being above the age
of pupilage, did in the presence cf divers credible wit=
nesses acknowledge each other to be man and wife, ac•
cording to the law of Scotland." He objected to that
as defective; the term pupilage conveyed lio informa-
tion to the Court, nor did it afford any opportunity of
connterpleading. There was also a certificate ofJames
Paisley (the parson), stating that he bad been pi e,ent at
such marriage. The Leal ned Advoc :te objected to the
certificate being received as evidence, and cited the case
of Nokes v. Milward, this year befote the Consist lry
Court of Rochester, in which a similar certificate horn
.1. Laing was rejected. After cititig.a variety of ca
the Learned Advocate stated the charge of adultery
was also too loosely pleaded. The parties cohabited
together from the time of marriage till IGI7, and a: ter-
wards until 1823. Tins fact of adultery charged is
stated to have been that Mr. Montague having indaced
Mrs. Montague to go to Livet pool, under perence of
residing there, Mr. MOntiigt!e returned to his h(tuse
ut
IsLrrthampton-square, in Islington, whete he lived in
adultery with two sisters of the name of Baldwin, ser-
vants in his house, by each of whom he had children.
These facts occurred from 1817 to 1820, after which a
cohabitation took place between the parties. There way
no averment that it had only recently come to the knov..-

ledge of Mrs. Montague.
Dr. Jr.natt followed on the same side, and polut,.d out various
deficiencies, which he contended were apparent in the allegation.
Sir C. RoprasoN—Tbe parties will have no üblection, I dare say,
to supply them.
Dr. Lostitawron—We will supply them if it it thought necessary.
Dr. Aunams, in reply, said he did not suppose it
Would better the case, or alter the facts. If the decla-
ration stated that the parties drove up in a postchai:e
to a blacksmith's forge at Gretna Green, s, bete they
were subsequently !tallied, it would not, he contended,.
be necessary that Mrs. Montague should allege the
precise words used by the blacksmith. on the occasion.
Dr. fxsunrcrozz—l beg to set my Le..rned Friend right. The
parson was A respectable tobacconist l—(A laugh )
Dr. Anba sin, in continuation, said —The age at which
the capability of persons for the marriagge state, as
termed iu the Law of Scotland " pupilage, would be
found in Lord Stair's Institutes to be fourteen for males,
and twelve for females. The present parties were above
that age.
Sir C. ltontssoar reviewed the allegations, and the
objections raised against them, at considerable length.
After which he said it would be desirable to have some
of them rendered less ambiguous, and particularly di-
rected that the Ist, 2d, Bth, and 10th Articles should
be refornied.—The allegatlon dismissed,
satorn u. SMITH.
Mr. W. Carmichael Smith, on this cause being called,
shortly addressed the Court. He had hoped that Dr.
Lushington and Dr. Phillimore, as men of honour and
integrity, would have seen from the allegation that he
had brought in, and the exhibits annexed to it, that it
was medical rather than legal advice of which his wife
stood in need. He had hoped he should be spared the
pain, and mortification, and expense, of .again attending
that bar, and having his domestic misfortunes bought
once more before the public. lie had now to pray that
his allegation might be admitted ; and he particularly
called the Court's attention to the prayer contaired in
its 14th article (which was, that the Court would direct
Mrs. Smith to be examined by skilful medical men ;
and if their report should be favourable to her sanity,
the party proponent engaged to take her home, and
treat her with the utmost kindness).
The COURT said, it had read the allegation, but if
Mr. Smith wished it, it should he read again publicly.
Mr. Smith declined the offer : but afterwards prayed
that it might be read, which was done by the Registrar.
It is necessary to say, that it was rather informal
and rambling, and accused his wife of frequent accesses
of insanity, testified by outrageoos conduct, and by in-
accent expressions utterer'. in his presence, ani by cer-
tain letters annexed (which letters did not seem to con-
vey a similar impression, either to the Court or the
minds of Counsel).
Dr. PHILLIMORE, on behalf of Mrs. Carmichael
Smith, said he should purposely refrain from going
into the particulars of that Lady's libel, consi'sti'ng of
thirty-two articles, and charging various acts of cru-
elty and adultery against her husband. As the Court
had read it, it would be the most advisable course not
now to repeat it. The allegation, however, which Mr.
Smith brought in in answer, was totally irrelevant
to the matter of the libel, and by consequence totally
II
inadmissible. All the reply it attempted was, that his
wife was deranged in mind: but supposing that to be
true (which, however, the Learned Counsel utterly de-
nied, if he might judge from the language of the ex-
hibits), her derangement could be no defence of his
acts of cruelty and adultery. As to his having un-
warrantably confined her in a private mad-house, from
which she was brought up before the Judges, by habeas
corpus, and finally discharged under an order from Mr.
Justice Park and' Mr. Justice Richardson, after personal
conference with her, and hearing, the testimony of
several witnesses, All Mr. Smith's answer amounted to
this—that he had a bad fall from his horse, which pro-
duced a concussion of the brain.
Dr. LUOINGTON, on the same side, was at a loss to
COOCtille how an accident of this nature could be
pleaded as a good defence to a charge of cruelty and
adultery ; and still more, how Mr. Smith could hope to
'succeed in the other part of his plea—that in conse-
wine of the continued illness that ensued upon that