Star.
London, England, 1825-07-08 00:00:00

HALL V HOLLANDER.

Triis was an action by a man who, works in a straw,
manufactory, to recover compensation for an injury
done to his child, of two years and a half old, by reason
of which he lost his se: vice.

The child of the plaintiff was in July last crossing at
the top of King-streer, Sohn, in his way to school,
when the defendant rode over Lim in a gig, rind frac-
tured his skull. The child was taken to the Middlesex
Hospital, anJ afterwAids remiived home, where, by the
assistance of surgeons, a partial cure was effected. The
princip,-11 winle►s, Thomas Butler, gave his ov inion that
the defendant was driving at a moderate pace, and
might, by using caution, have pulled up in time to
prevent the accident.
Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. PLATT submitted that the
plaintif must be nonsuited, inasmuch as the age of the
child precluded all possibility of its rendering service,
the loss of which was essential to the action.
The lona Claw Junto.' was clearly of opinion that the action
could not be supported ; the plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
The Jury desired to know if they were to teceive the evidence
of Fielder?

The Loan Cum Jusvica. —You may attach what credit you
will to it. I have only to tell you that I have at:mitted it as com-
petent; subject to any objection hereafter, to be made by a motion
before the whole Court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 7.
Lord Chief Justice Ben., and a Special Jury, were occupied
during the whole of the day in trying an issue out of the Vice-
Chancellor's Court, to determine whether certain mallow lai4s in
the county of Middlesex were exempt from the payment uf small
tithes? The case possessed no interebt whatever, except to the
parties to the suit.
CONSISTORY COURT, JULY 7.

A question came on this day as to the admission of
a libel in a cause of separation and divorce, by season
of adultery, promoted by the husband against the wife.
The libel charged, that on the return of these parties
and their family from the East Indies, cm board an In-
dianian, the wife became criminally c nnected with an
Officer who was a passenger by the same vessel; that
some suspicious circumstances were brought to the no-
tice of the husband, coonected with the fact of his Lady
having sent letters to the Officer by one of the Captain
of the Indiaman's servants. That servant was vouched
in the libel to prove that he had often dclivercd (esters,
by the Lady's desire, to the Otlicer in question; and it
was charged that herself and the Officer had been ob.
served to interchange billets whim they came upon
deck, under the canvass awning, leading to the princi.
pal cuildy-room, where the passengers dined. On o•.e
occasion, the servant carried one or the notes from the
Lady to the Captain of the ship : by whom it was
handed to another Lady, a friend both of the husband
and the wife, and she revea'ed the circumstance to ihe
husband. The note itself contained no deci,led ind;ca-
tions of improper familiarity, except that it began arid
concluded in terms somewhat more affectionate than
the mere regard of friendship might seem to warrant.
The husband, however, was at the same time ialormed,
that his wife and the Officer had been observed fre-
quently to enter a cabi❑ approptizted to the latter for
the purls, ses of a dressing-room ; and in v Lich the libel
suggested the criminal intercourse charged against
them to have taken place. In the first instance, the
husband was overah:l:t►ed with astor.i;lnent and
grief, and appeared disposed to consider her guilty.
He accepted the offer of the Captain of the ship, to
whose cabin he retired, and there he remained for a
few days in absolute seclusion. At lengt:•, one morn-
ing, as it was stated, he rushed upon deck apparently
unconscicus whither he was going, or what he was
about to do, and went to his wile's cabin. Her soi.ezna
assurances and protestations, backed by the declared
opinion of the mutual friend (a Lady who was also
coming home in the same ship), at length satisfied him,
during the remainder of the voyage, that though she
had acted with extraordinary imprudence, she had not
heal criminally acquainted ssith tl.e Office•. The libti
then set forth, that ►uiortuacion which had come to his
ears, however, subsequently to their arrival in England
had produced a very different toi,viction on his •

and tint he had, ininied.at,ly upon gsu
tel.igettee, taken the eaCicst proccco"...l.;• for the
tution of tilts suit, Sc.c.

giano,
1111113 ;
tich itt•
e !Heil•

• . ,

, *l-
- 1 't

Dr. Pert.z.taeoaa and Dr. DODOON contended that
the libel was inadmissible, because, if the matter it
ceetained, should even be proved, it appeared that the
husband had actually condoned the offence. He had,
after the first burst of suspicion and displeasure, re-
turned to a state of cohabitation with his wife, in
which he continued for some weeks, and until after the
close of the voyage. Now, that because the informa-
tion alluded to was neither specific, nor could be any
other than might have been, and most probably was,
obtained at sea before the return to cohabitation ; and
because the party could not now specify what " further
intelligence" he had obtained ; therefore, the Court
ought not to admit this libel to proof.
Dr. Jaime& and Dr. Luanuelon were then heard on Oa
half of the husband, who had been plated, as they contended,
in a most extraordinary and difilcult sitnationaQsad erred (if at all)
in utter ignorance of the guilt of his wife, and from an excess of
attachment merely, for which be surely ought not to suffer, being,
on the contrary, fully entitled to the remedy he prayed.
Sir Cmarsvornsa Robinson admitted the libel, in order that the
substantive facts of the case might be properly gone into heteafter.

WYATT V. WYATT.
In this matter, pending suit between the wife and the husband,
the Proctor for Mrs. Wyatt moved the Court to decree his party
alimony, after the rate cf 3001. per annum. Defendant was an
architect, whose professional means were equal to an income of
between 4,0001. and 5,0001. per annum.—Ordered.

MONTAGU V. MONTAGU.
This proved to be a case of singular importance, as involving
some general question upon the validity of Gretna-green marriages,
and determining an interest in property of the valve of 300,0001.
and upwards. Before the question of adultery could be tried, it
was of course necessary to prove the marriage, which the husband's
plea had denied.
Dr.A cows described the suit to be one of separation
by reason of adultery, brought by Mrs. Margaret Green
Montagu, aealist her husband, George Conway Mon-
tigu, Esc; The citation in this cause issued on the 10th
or May, 1824, and an appearance having been given
for the Gentleman, a libel was brought is on the 26th
November last, and admitted in the month of February
following. That libel in substance pleaded as follows;
the marriage of the parties, and the way in which 1: was
actually celebrated ; and the wife at present prayed a
sentence, so far as respected the validity of such mar-
riage solely; and the matter now stood assigned for,
sentence accordingly, upon that point alone. The libel
stated in the first ankle of the law of Scotland, as it
applied to marriages between males being above the
age of 14 years, and females above the age of 12 ; and
it set forth that a valid marriage might be contracted
between parties of or above such respective ages, in the
kingdom, and by the immemorial law and custom of
Scotland, by their consent, " per verba de prgesenti,'
without publication of any banns, or authority of any
license, or the intervention of any religious ceremony
whatever; that the mutual acknowledgment of one
another as husband and wife, and their public Cohabi-
tation together as such, is taken to be conclusive evi-
dence of their marriage, unless it be distinctly proved
that tgey lave not really intended to contract such
marriage thereby ; and that, ih the case of persons being
so above the age of pupilage, and entering into Arch
contracts within the kingdom of Scotland, thelaw of that
kingdom does not hold the consent of parents or guar-
dians to be necessary to the validity thereof. The second
article pleaded that in the year 1803, the said George C.
Montagu, being under embarrassed circumstances, went
to reside at Liverpool, where he passed under, and was
known by the name of William Thompson; and where,
still passing under such appellation, he did, in the
months of August, September, October, November, and
December, of that year, being then a bachelor, pay his
ad dresses, in the way f marriage, to Margaret Green
Montagu, the other party in this cause (then Margaret
Green Wilson, spinster), of Liverpool, a minor, aged
seventeen ; that he then disclosed to her, as well as to
Mr. George Crosbie, a particular friend of her's, that
his resl name and description was George Conway Mon-
tagu; that having agreed to become husband and wife,
they, the parties in this cause, proceeded to Scotland for
the purpose of so intermarrying; and did, on the 29. h
of December, 1803, in the presmce of divers credible
witnesses, at Gretna-green, in Scotland, acknowledge
and declare each other to be hush snd and wife, Go and
were validly joined together in matrimony" by one
Joseph Paisley, who performed the ceremony on that
occasion, 64 reading in the pretence of the Said George
Conway Montagu and blargaret Green Montagu, for-
merly Wilson, the office for matrimony as contained in
the liturgy of clic Church of England as by law esta-
blished; the two parties passing by their real names of
Montagu and Wilson ;" the marriage so celebrated, being
a good and valid marriage according to the Scotch law.
The third article pleaded that, shortly before the par-
ties went to Gretna.gretn, Mr. Montagu, under the
assumed name of William Thom; son, wrote and ad-
dressed
a letter to Mr. Charles Wilson, the grandfa!her
of Miss Wilson, wherein he informed Mr. Wilson of his
departure for Scotland with his grand-daughter, and of
his intention to marl y her ; that Mr. Montagu enclosed.
such letter in an envelope, and delivered it to Mr. Geo
Cros!rie, with directions to give it to Mr. Wilson, which
was done ; and that shortly after the marriage, Mrs. I
blontagu herself, formerly Miss Wilson, wrote and sent
a letter to her aunt, in Liverpool, informing her that
she laid on the previous day given her hand to the said
George Conway Montagu, describing him under his
assumed name of William Thompson, which letter was
addressed on the outside, and in the hand-writing of
lb. Montagu, to tie aunt, who has since, by marriage,
assumed the ante of Itavely. The lourth article exhi-
bited in supply of proof two exhibits, being the letterl
(before-mentioned) marked No. 1 and N 0.2; whereof
No. I was entirely of Mr. Montagu': band-writing, and
No. '2 of Mrs. Montagu's, with the exception of the
supetscription, which was written by her husband. The
fifth article set forth, that after such their marriage,
Mr. and Mrs. Montego cohabited together in all re.
spects as husband and wife in the mty of Edinburgh,
till about the end of March, 1804, when they returned
to Liverpool; Mr. and Mrs. Montagu, in all that inter-
val acknowledging each other to be, arid being acknow-
ic Itled by, their friends, acquaintances, &c. for husband
and wife, and particularly to Mr. Crosbie. It was set
forth in the next article, that during their residence at
Edinburgh, Mr. Montagu, under the name of William
Thompson, wrote and sent a letter to Mr. Wilson, in-
forming hint be had married his grand-daughter; such
letter (masked No. 3) being brought in as an exhibit
in further supply of proof. The Bth article stated, that
at the time of Mr. Montagu's marriage, he obtained
feern Joseph Paisley, the man who had celebrated the
same, a paper writing, purporting to be a certificate
thereof, which paper he preserved, and has frequently
shewn to many persons of credit, and on one occasion,
to lately as in the month of Mae, 1823 ; and that in
June, 182'2, he had applied to Mr. Geo. Crosbie, and re-
on his toad to Scotland, at Gretna-
him another copy of this writing.

The Pth article recited, that on the return of ' Mr.'
Montagu to Liverpool, in March, 180 f, he informed
Mrs. Montagu's relations of her marriage to him ; and
that after spending one day in Liverpool, his Lady
and himself proceeded to Maidenhead, where he intro-
duced her as his wife to his sister; and proceeding to
Lackham•house, in the county of Wilts, to his mother
and family ; and that they resided there and at other
places subsequently, until about the month of March,
1821, always cohabiting together and aihriowledging
one another as husband and wife, and that during
such time they had issue six children, three of whom
were still living. In supply of proof, the 10th article
pleaded the letter, No. 4, brought in as an exhibit,
and purporting to be written from Calais by Mr. Mon-
tagu to his wife. It appeared to be uritten in the
month of September, 180, and was in the hand-
writing of Mr. Montagu. These, the Le .rnei Counsel
observed, were the only articles that bore any relation
to the question about the marriage. Any question
upon the other articles, which related to the facts of
adultery imputed to this Gentleman, was not at pre-
sent before the Court. The question for the Court's pre-
sent determination related solely to the marriage, as that
was pleaded to have been celebrated, acknowledged, and
confirmed in the various articles of the lib:1 from 1 to 10.

O.► this libel there had been examined eight witnesses in
London; three under a requisi ion addressed to a place
called Longtow n, in the County of Cumberland, and
twelve under a requisition at Edinburgh. It appeared
to the Learned Counsel that those witnesses most fully
proved the marriage in question to have taken place,
very much in the way stated in the libel, and that three
of them in particular (members of the Scotch Faculty
of Advocates) spewed that it was a valid marriage ac-
cording to the law of Scotland. That law must depend
for its application on particular parts of this case, ;,0
which it was very material that the Clurt should atten-
tively consider the nature of the evidence produced.—
(He►e the Le4rned Gentleman entered i►+to a summary

of those poi tiotis of the testimony adduced, which
proved the addresses paid horn September to Ilmem-
ber, 1803, by a person passing under the name of Wilt
Liam Thompson, of Liverpool, to a Miss Margaret
Green Wilson, of that place—the circumstance of these
parties quitting Liverpool in the latter end of Decem-
ber in that year—their communications with Mr. Geo.
Crosbie on the subject—the marriage of two parties
about this time at Gretna-green, and their identity, al-
though the Gentleman was so married under a different
name, with the William Thompson and the Margaret
Green Wilson deposed of.)
Sir Cis:norm Rossi:sox suggested the propriety of Counsel's
reading tie most important depositions in this ease, netwithbtinding
that the Court had already perused them with great care.

The Learned Counsel accordingly proceeded, in the
first place, to read the depositions of Henry Cockburn,
Francis Jeffery, and James Moncrief, Esqrs. the general
effect of which was, that by the law and custom of
Scotland, a marriage contracted by any man and
woman, being above the age of pupilage (fourteen in
the male, and twelve in the female) per verba de pre
senti, in the presence of witnesses, and followed by mu-
tual cohabitation, recognition, and acknowledgment,
would be a good and valid marriage, and would re•
quire neither the publication of banns, the consent
of parents or guardians, nor the performance of any
religious ceremony in facie eccksice to give it authen-
ticity and effect ; excepting only in a case wherein it
could be clearly and distinctly shewn that the verba de.
prosenti had not been uttered with the intention of so
contracting, or had been uttered jocularly. Upon this
evidence as to the law of Scotland, and the evidence of
Mrs. !Lively, Crcsbir, Winburne, and.others of the wit-
nesses, as to identity, cohabitation, and acknowledge-
ment, the Learned Counsel submitted that the marriage
and identity of the parties were proved and established.
Dr. Lusuturrros, on the same side, adverted also to this remark-
able acknowledgment of the marriage by the husband himself, in
the letter addressed by him to Mrs. .31ontagu from Calais, in the
month of September, 1323 : " To you, my wife, to the only ear
and heart I feel disposed to appeal to, &c."
The remainder of the evidence was then shortly read.
Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON observed, that this
question arose out of a suit of sepration by reason of
adultery, promoted by the wife against the husband ;
but the marriage of the parties had taken place under
such peculiar circumstances, as rendered it necessary in
the first instance to prove that marriage. The Court
then recapitulated the substance of the libels as to the
fact of marriage, and the heads of the evidence adduced
in support of that marriage; observing, that it had
very seldom happened, in a case extending over such a
long period of time, and to be established by so nume
roue a body of wi.nesses, that the chain of prcnf and
evidence was made nut in so unbroken a manner u in
this instance. There was not a chasm to be supplied.
The Gotta alluded to a part of tl:e deposition c•f Mr.
Tugssell Robins, of Queen's-square, Bloomsbury, soli-
citor in this case, as extremely material to shecv the
allusions made by Mr. Montagu to the certificate sub-
sc►ibed by Paisley, of Gretna-green, as to a paper of
which he was most ca:eful and tenacious, because it
proved his marriage with this Lady. After an elabo-
rate review of the -whole case, which our lim is will
not permit us to follow, the Court pronounced for the
validity of this marriage.
Upon the application of Dr. Ana's% an allotment of ASSOO, in the
nature of alimony, was made to the Lady, to be accounted for here-
after, in reterence to any future allotment of alimony to be made
her pcoulexte life.

quested him to apply,g c
green, and obtain for 1