Star.
London, England, 1821-07-14 00:00:00

he did not believe the Jury would allow them to
come forward and prove a iniuoritp
The Learned Counsel then called the Attorney of,
Mr. Penny to prove these circumstances.
Mr. MailavArr, for the plaintiff', contended that
here had been no proof of any declaration on the part
of the mother that her on was of age; and he would
call several witnesses to prove that at the time this
judgment was entered up he was not 21. The date
of his birth being the lffth of October, 1799, and the
judgment being entered up as of Hilary Term (Fe-
bruary), 1820, several months before he attained the

age of twenty-one.
The mother of the plaintiff, his half-brother, and
the woman in whose house the plaintiff was born,
stated his birth to have taken place in October, 1799.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, found a ver-
dict for the defendant, thereby establishing that the
plaintiff was of age at the time he gave the warrant
of attorney in question.

CONSISTORY COURT, JULY IS.
RIMING V. SMITH, FALSELY CALLED RUDING.
This was a case of nullity of marriage, by reason
of undue celebration, and was brought by the hus-
band against the wife. The facts were few, and in
themselves unimportant; but the question at issue in-
volved the validity of, perhaps, every marriage cele-
brated by British Ministers of the Established Pio-
testant Church of England, Chaplains to, or other-
' wise connected with, British armies of occupation,
quartered in any foreign territories, since the passing
of the Marriage Act upwards of sixty years ago.
Dr. JENNER opened the case. This was the case
of a marriage between 'hiding, an Officer in
the Army of his Britannic Majesty, and Miss Jemima
Claudia Smith, which was solemnized at the Cape
of Good Hope (one year after its reduction in 1795),
by a Clergyman in orders of the Church of England,
under a license from the Commanding Officer on that
station, and between two persons, British subjects.—
The period, therefore, between the celebration cif the
marriage and the institution of the suit was some-
where about twenty-five years. These fasts were
pleaded in the 9th article of the libel given in. Tltis
was clearly a marriage which must be go bd and valid
in all places where the Marriage Act had no opera-
tion. Before the passing of that Act, there could be
no doubt as to its validity. But he understood that it
was to be impeached on this ground, namely, that
this marriage had'been had and celebrated in a Co-
lony conquered by his Majesty's arms, and under an
express capitulation that the laws of such territory
should remain in full force, and should be binding
on those who remained in the Colony. The certifi-
cate was dated on the 22d of October, 179 G, and set
torch that the marriage had been solemnized by per-
mission of General Sir James Craig, the Commander-
in-Chief of the British fdrces. The provision of the
Dutch law (pleaded in the 4th article) declared, that
no legal and valid marriage could be had (within the
Colony) without a due publication of the bans, or
without a license or dispensation granted by the Su-
preme Authority of the State ; that no men under
thirty years of age, and no women under twenty-five,
could legally marry without the consent of their pa-
rents, if living ; or, if not, of their guardians. It ap-
peared that, from this law, there was no exemption
for foreigners "in itinere ;" but that, on the contrary,
it was binding upon all .persons whatever within the
Colony. Tin...articles went on to plead, that this mar-:
riage was had at the house of the British Command-
ing Officer, and was celebrated by a British Clergy-
man. fie must maintain that this was a valid mar-
riage, and valid according to the laws of the Colony,
with reference to the situation in which it stood, at
least after its reduction by the British forces. But
he could not conceive that these two persons (one of
them, too, a soldier), in itincre, natives of this coun-
try, celebrating their marriage in conformity to the
laws of this country, were to be bound by the local
law of the Colony, in exclusion of the law of Eng-
land ; that is to say, that immediately on the sur-
render of the Cape, British subjects were to conform
to different laws, originally enacted for purposes dif-
ferent from the purposes of their own laws, and ap-
plicable altogether to a very different race of persons.
The laws of the Cape might have been binding and
penal upon two individuals, inhabitants of the Cape,
or subjects of Holland ; but they must have surely a
very different operation on two parties owing no al-
legiance whatever to ;he Dutch Government, and re-
cognizing no Dutch law whatever before the period
of the capitulation ; a, fortiori they could be under no
such obligation after the capitulation, when the Co-
lony became essentially British.
Dr. PHILLIMORE followed on the same side.
Dr. Loshisti row contended, that in all conquered
countries whatever, the laws of those countries, by
custom, remained unchanged, and in full force, with-
out recourse being had by the inhabitants to any sti-
pulation with our Commanders to that effect ; and
so continued until they were altered by the King, or
other competent authority of this Government.
Sir NV. SCOTT said, this case involved weighty and
highly important considerations arid interests. He
would maturely consider it, and give notice to the
Registrar when he would deliver his opinion upon it.
WESTMINSTER SESSIONS, JULY 13.
ILLISTON V. ROD WELL AND ANOTHER.

Mr. ALLP.Y informed the Court that the defend-
ants, sensible that they had acted in a manner which
they could not justify, had put themselves into his
hands entirely, and in pursuance of an arrangement,
to which his Learned Friend Mr. ADOLPHUS had as-
sented, the defendants would plead guilty.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, for Mr. ELLISTON, stated that the
defendants, in pleading guilty, had made an acknow-
ledgment of error, which was quite sufficient for him ;
and as this dispute was one which particularly in- ,
terested the Theatrical World, in which Mr. ELLISTON
occupied a considerable station, and had a large pro-
perty under his command, it had been thought right
,that the defendants should, as a mark of their pro-
per feeling on this occasion, pay £2O to each-of the
Theatrical Funds of Drury-Lane and Covent-Garden.
Mr.ELLISTON acceded to this arrangement, and the
quarrel has thus been amicably terminated, to the
credit of all the parties concerned.
FRAUD.

James Simmonds was indicted for a fraud on the'
Westminster Regiment of Militia. Two gerjeants of
the Regiment proved that the prisoner, in June last,'
when the Regiment was called out for the annual
training, joined as a substitute, and received five
ea1•11111CAS bounty he served timing the time the Re-