Star.
London, England, 1812-07-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
CURT OP CHANCliakars JtTLY at.
MARktAGE ACT.
~ • ilparrOnt a Etuntits.
A 'very inportaht question' off the editstreetioll Of ,
t' a Matriage Acts has 'come- before the Chancellor,
bx an Appeal- nom the Rolls. Mr: Hughes, father of
the defendant, married a Miss Roberts, an illegiti-
mate childs by likence, with the consent of the thother,
tht. father being dead;- and the defendant, a young
Lady about eighteen years of age, is the only issue of
the marriage. The question is, whether the consent
of the father or mother of an illegitimate minor, is
sufficient to legalize a marriage of the minor under
the Marriage Act ? If the question is decided in the
affirmative, the defendant will be entitled, by descent,
'ens' fortune of ,e 100,000; if in the negative, she will
have nothing. The case was sent by the Maiter of
the Rolls to the King's Bench. Three of the Judges,
ELLENlsottotioir, LE BLANC, and BAYLEY, cerdhed
%hat the marriage was not band; Mr. Justice Gaon,
that it was valid ; the case of illegitimate minors
being cane emitter in that part of the Act that relates
to marriage by licence.
The MarrEa of the ROLLS concurred in opinion
with the majority of the Judges of the Court of King's
Bench, and decided against the validity of the mar-
riage. From this decision there is an appeal to the
CSIANCELLon, who promised soon to give his opinion ;
but expressed his hope that the subject would be cat-
tied to the House of Lords, as a question of this im-
portance could not be too tarefully examined. The
matter rests here at present ; but it was generally un-
derstood that there would be an appeal to the Lords.
GRETNA-GREEN MARRTAGE.
WRAY V. WOOD AND OTHILits.
ei• Th s was a Bill filed by the plaintiff, Wray, for a
•
sum of money to which be was entitled in right of his
late wife, under the following circumstances t--It
d,ppeared that the young Lady was entitled to a large
sum of money on her coming of age, or being married
with consent, and the parties went to Scotland some
time since, and were married at Gretna-green, with-
out consent. On their return to England they were
again married according to the laws of England, and
with a consent in writing. The question was, whether
the patty, by being married in Scotland without con-
vent, had not forfeited the money, notwithstanding
the second marriage by consent. It was proved that
the parties went to Scotland for the purpose of their
being married, and of their living together in this
Country, after their return, as man and wife before
the second marriage. The evidence of the marriage
in Scotland was a certificate, or rather paper, signed
by the man who married them, but It was signed tin.
der a false name, and it seems he was in the habit
of signing all these certificates under a false name,
from an apprehension that he should incur some risk
jar signing his teal name. This Certificate or paper
was also signed by the husband and wife, and was a
declaration of their marriage.
. Such a paper, it was admitted, amounts to a mar-
riage according to the Laws of Scotland, and it was
not necessary, under those laws in proving a marriage,
to trove the precise form in which it took place.
Mr. LZACU insisted, that this certificate could not
hse received as evidence of the marriage, or, at all
events, it ought to be decided by a jery, im an issue
from the Court of Chancery. whether the parties
were married in Scotland, in which case the Judge
would determine whether this certificate was sufficient
evidence, so as •to subject the young lady to the loss
of her fortune.
, Gtr SAISUEL ftoMILLY, in reply, insisted that no
issue was necessary, but that the Court could decide
the question; and he observed, that it had already
seen determined that this certificate was good evi-
Oence of a marriage, except in cases of bigamy, or
trim. coo.
'Bur his Honour thought it a mixed question, and
tlierefare proper to go before a Jury.
An issue was therefore directed, to ascertain %%he-
aler the parties were married in Scotland, and, if so,
whether such marriage was with consent ?