Star.
London, England, 1819-12-06 00:00:00

I

~ ~ i

01,

Y
It
P

11'!

'Ol
.fi
iit

qi.

~'.
~;

,

. :

,ii

c,

sisters of her own, from whom these several claimants,
ler grand-nephews, and grand-nieces had sprung.
Mr. Whiteman anattorney, prepared anew will in
favour of the relations generally. On that occasion
it was found Mr. John Bullman had ppt a padlock
and chain to the street door, and visitants were re-
fused admittance. The parties threatened to apply
to the Magistrates if he did not admit them, before
he would grant them access ; and on every occasioa
of such visit he remained in the room. They applied
questions to her, respecting the disposition of her pre-
perty, but Mr. John Bullman interrupted her com-
munication in answer. Mr. Whiteman and Harrison
Bullman having received instructions from deceased
to make another will, revocatory of that in favour of
Hunter and John Bullman, John Bullman said to
them, as they were leaving the room, he would send
for Mr. Hunter, and then deceased should make ano-
ther will revoccatarry of the one for which they had
received instructions. Accordingly Mr. Hunter being
written to by' Mr. John Bullman, comes to London,
and the will of the 17th June, now propounded, is
again executed la their favour, revocatory of the inter-
mediate will, •ivhich was iii favour of a general distri-
bution among her kindred in the North.
Under all the circumstances of the case, the Court
was bound to determine that this was not the free
will and intientfon of the testatrix, but under a de-
gree of incapacity and fluctuation of mind from un-
due tafluence, custody, and sentroul—unders these
circumstance the Caurt -pronounced intestacy:
ARCIIES•COURT, 'DOCTORS' COMMONS, DEC. 4.
CURIOUS CASE.
NULLITY of MARRIAGE OR THE GROUND OF SELF-
IMPUTE/ICY IN THE PARTY PROMOTING THE SUIT.
This was a' question of a most novel and extraor-
dinary complezioa. The names of the parties were
tint made public. Upon the admissibility of a libel
brought in by the husband against the wife, to asta-
baish nullity of marriage (after a period of seven
yea, s, during which it appeared they had lived in
matrimonial union) on the plea, that he the husband
(it stems a person of rank and fortune) was not only
in a state of absolute frigidity and impotency up to
the presentairne, but from the hour of his birth (as
*ould be established by professional evidence,) to-
tally incapacitated from the performance of reau
i-
monial rites.
Dr. ADAMS was first heard en the ground of in-
admissibility of the libel.
Dr. Dopsors, on the same side, contended, that as
this suit was brought by the husband himself, and
as he knew, at the time of contracting the said mar-
riage, his incapability of performing matrimonial
rites, and, as the libel set krill, that of this fact phy-
sicians and surgeons of eminence, who had made
strict examination, would come forward to attest
and verify upon oath, the party ought not to be per-
mitted to institute this suit ; for it was the universal
maxim of all law,that the party could not take advan-
tage of his own wrong, so as to void his contract with
another. With analogy to the principles of the Com-
man Law .if a man cannot fulfil his own contract,
he shall II& take advantage of the law to thc preju-
dice of another, as to say that therefore such con-
tract is void. This was a principle acknowledged by
Blackstone to pervade the whole law of contract. In,
the case of Murdock v. Buller, 10th Vesey, jun. Lord
Eldon would not hear the doctrine there maintained,
that the vendor cannot perform his contract to. the
vendee, because Ire had contracted for more than he
could perfoi nit and that because the vendee could not-
have the whole of the contract, that he should have
Lane. The Learaed Doctor, alter citing other allay)•
tiaes by analogy, founded on the Common Law
prkciple, contended t at the Callen Law vas like-
wise decidedly in his favour. This was the first suit
of the kind that had ever been instituted ; and if the
Cool took into its consideration the parties havingl
lived together for seven years as man and wife, and
the latter having lost, by her advance in years, all
opportunity of entering int" another contract, and
being, by a sentence of nullity, turned off withoutthe
allowance of a single halfpenny, contemplating this
hardship, the Court would not encourage such suit,
but dismiss the parties. .
Dr. PHILLINLORE, in support of the libel, contended
than the wifein this case was to be considereaan the
light of persons having taken the. veil, as nuns. It
was undoubtedly like that of a man and wife living
together as sister and brother. The authority of Sir
'William Wynn; in 1777, was, a that a woman might
institute a suit against her husband in consequence of
incapacity in herself:- The- arguments of.his ,r.earned
Friends on 'the other side went for nothing, the lava
of contract having no bearing on the subject. The
question for the Court to decide in this case was,
whether there was any contract at all, and whether
that 'contract inatself was a nullity ?
Dr..Losultroaors followed on the same side, and
contended,, that. the. wrong had been encouraged by
the wife, since it was competent for her to have
maintained her sult.(not having patiently submitted)
by which the marriage would have been declared,
null suiclivold oli :initsio.- She, in fact, was the author
of her own wrong, by having patiently endured this
inconeenieadel, Sesppose it should so happen, that
the party should !commit adultery unknown to the
husband, the child or children so produced might;
come in,,eo the exclusion of the next of kin, and des
ptive the heir at law of the estate. Although. the
unpotency might be proved, as well as adultery, it
would not be competent to allege this was not the
child of the husband, after one of the parties was
dead. By the Canon Law, this marriage was alto-
gether a nallitys because ft partakes of fraud and
sin ; consequently, the parties should not be permit-
ted to continue in that state, which the law does not
recognize. .Brusette .says, FrOudum meditatuni
ft li, that is, where a party enters into matrimony
conscidus of sonar imperfection; in that case, the hus-
band would be prohibited from instituting this suits
but here it was impossible to say the party was con.
scious of his owe .defect until the experiment was
sale. There might be such incapacity as it was
scposs,ale for a man to detect.
sir Ado, Has'it taken him seven years
to ascertain it?"
Dr. LWIHINGTOW-4t may be naturally supposed
wine his own
the party was•extremely rdnctant
shame ; but I believe the Lady is with at this
animals I It is, therefore, to prevent haat-1.'71:01
his so as,to interfere with the rights aaid interests
et the heir asla*.
lint Jowl Moot.--t should wish to know if there

.. •

is any precedent fora party bringing a snit,* weer.-
Xain his own incapacky ? -
Dr. Puzza.istoas—Oaly the hypothesis of Sir Wzn.
Wynne, which is very imperfect on the.subjac.t.
Sir . Nmos.—Tirat is mere hypothesis; it does
not appear that any parties ever came forward so to
stultify themselves; but that they may now do so in
carrying on this cause.. I shall be obliged to Tou to
send me a list of the authorities before I decide on
the admissibility of the libel--Judgment deferred.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
CURLING V. SUCK.
This was an action for a breach of 'promise of
marriage, and the damages were laid at £l,OOO. It
appeared that the plaintiff; Miss Mary Ann Curling,
was
_a young lady of considerable personal attrac-
tions; residing with her mother, a lace-cleaner, in
Wood-street, Bond-street. The defendant, formerly
an Officer of Engineers in the East India Company's
services now acted as Minister to a congregation of
Baptist's, at a new Chapel, situate between Queen-
streetnadtltarlfs-street, Oxford-road. He had pre-
viously preached at a Chapel in Tichfield-street.—
The lady was of the age of twenty-two, and the de.
fendant twenty-eight years. The acquiintance com-
menced by the plaintiff, her mother, and sister, going
to hear the defendant preach, in November, 1818,
after which they visited each other. Shortly alter it
was agreed, that-the family of the plaintiff Mould
become his sectarians, and they accordingly joined
the Baptist Society, and became a part of his con-
gregation. 'Die- defendant then paid his addresses to
the plaintiff, with the consent of her mother, and
with the knowledge of his father, a tailor, residing
in Arundel-street, in the Strand; the families con-
tinuing to visit each other from November, 1818, to
April, 1819,. wheit the defendant thought proper to
break off the intended marriage, which had been re-
peatedly promised, and even published by banns.—
His letter on this occasion stated, among other things,
that his father had given bis absolute negative to the
connexion, and that, if the union took place, it would
prevent his father's settling those debts which ke (the
defendant) had Contracted in India, and which his
father was now liquidating, &c. Several love-letters
of the defendant's preceding this were read, which
marked his sentiments of propriety, respect, and
affection for the plaintiff: in one of. them he said—
I pray Con that the law may bring us together for
ber nu:mai comfort ;" and it was proved that. in a
Conversation respecting her, he had Said—" She is
pious Gop:fiariug youngwoman"—"Sht is a apt
tad gracious young woman !" On the part of the
fondant, it was stated, that he was in very name/
Fircumstances, and much involved; his father:had
hnumereus family besides. The salary lie iaijoy
as a preacher could not exceed EBO per isattnes,.. •
he bad expended all the money he ceadd-rise in
fitting up did chapel. Hbwertr, he abandoned all
attempt to throw any ithputatind On the character
of the Lady.
The CHIRF•JUSTICE mimed up the essei 'Sind the
Jury found a verdict for the Plaintilf--Daniages £ISO.

DALLAWAT O. CLAYTON.; • • • !
Mr. Serjeant VAUD/lAN stated,- that the plaintiff is
this case sought to recover from the defendant £2?.
10s. for board and lodging furnished to Mrs. My.,
ton. As he was instructed. he should be able to et ew
the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Clayton, and that fot
some time they lived together most happily and ere-.
ditably. At length, however, without any provoca-
tion or reason given by Mrs. Clayton, Whose conduct
had always been most correct, tale defendant changed
his behaviour altogether, and his wife found it ins-
possible to live longer with him. They separated;
but aftef the 'separation he refused to allow any sum
for her mr.intenance; she had received nothing from
him since January last. She had been living in the
house of ihe'plaintiff, a person of respectability, who
furnished her with-all necessaries, and now charged
the defendant at the rate of 251. a week, a charge
Which he was persuaded the Jury would not consider
as exorbitant.
Mr. Serjeant Luis, for the defendant, said they did
dot complain of the plaintiff's charge being unrea-
ionable. Their defence Was, that the defendafit al-
lowed his wife a, large a sum as his situation in life,
that of a journeyman saddler, enabled him to dO.
Mr. Serjeant 'Vat:Gnaw said, this description of
his Learned Brother's was well thrown in ; but he
would shew this journeyman saddler in his true eht
ratter; and he trusted the Jury would put the 411*
die on the right horse. He should be able to *on
that Mr. Clayton resided in an elegant house in W.
terloo-place, Pall-mall, whiCh was furnished a:
most splendid style; and that he had a good it-,
count at his banker's.
The Jury, after hearing the evidence, found tz ice'
dict for the plaintiff for 1.22. 10s. costs 40s.
OLD-BAILEY SILSSIONS.

---- -
Friday, Mary•Jordaa, Jane Parker, J. Churchilli
W. and Wildon, were tried, capitally, under Lord El-
lenborough's Act, for maliciously cutting and stab-
bing J. Macginness. The evidence of thciprosecntor,
Macginness, excited considerable laughter. It ap,
prated that the whole of the parties had met tool
ether. when a regular Irish row took place, and
the prosecutor received some injury, but not so'
serious but that he attempted to escape from the
Hospital ; for in answer to a qoestionfrom Mr. Am.- I
AIMS, whether he 'had not attempted to run away,
without his shoes and stockings? he replied, No, I
only tried to walk away !"
Mr. J. E. Field, an Assistant-Surgeon, stated, that
he was called to attend the prosecutor and on exa-
mining him, found only a few scratches on his right
breast, which did tot deserve the name of wounds.
Mr. Justice BAILIM here stopped the trial, by *.
serving, that from the evidence of the last witn
the nature of the scratches, for it appeared they
were not wounds, did not warrant the concha'
that bodily harm was intended. The Jury, unilbt
direction of the Learised Judge, instantly returned a
verdict of—Acquittal,
Saturday, two prisoners, of the name of Voss,
aged 23, and Keeton, aged 17, vfaro chat d. upon
several indictments, with having, at Mame partook
uttered a number of forged and counterfeit £.ll,
of England Notes ; and also with having, •
forged IS notes, purporting to be Bank of thud
Notes, in their possession.
The prisoner Voss, is an old offender, and
fz..44t; prison, in Surrey. a short time ago. LIMO
appears retsbotia than 17 years of age. ,
Voss put-elated, with a forged' C 5 now, a rail

......,

i
4
-
r .
tn.
I