Star.
London, England, 1818-06-12 00:00:00

THE ZINO V. THOMAS EVAN&

The charge against this defendant wag, that he
had in his possession 47 barrels of stale unpalatable
beer. Mr. Evans is entered on the books of the Ex-
cise as a brewer : his residence is No. 89, Guilford-
sticet, and his storehouse is situated in Maid-lane,
Southwark. On the 11th of March last, John Wil-
son, an Excise Officer, went to the store-house, and
found 47 casks containing 43} barrels of sour un-
wholesome beer.

It subsequently appeared, that this beer was pur-
chased at the sale of Mr. Newman, a bankrupt
brewer, by the defendant, in February last, and Mr.,
Laws, on the part of Mr. Evans, proved that that
Gentleman was now a cooper, and was in the habit
of employing a great number of workmen in the
trade. lie also endeavoured to shew that the .beer
was bought bonafide by the defendant at the sale, for
the use of the workmen he employed. These hard-
working men were not contented, he observed, in this
hot weather, with common beer—they liked some-
thing sharp, and as he had heard it emphatically
called, " cut-throat beer." This was the sort of stuff
for their palates, and he had little doubt but that it
vas as good as Champagne to them.
Several samples of the beer were produced, all of
them of a different colour, and filled with sediment.

A fine of £3O was ordered to be paid by tie de•
fendant.

CONSISTORY COURT, JUNE
SULLIVAN, GUARDIAN OF SULLIVAN, AGAINST OLD-
ACRE, OTHERWISE OLDAKER, FALSELY CALLING
HERSELF SULLIVAN. .

Sir WILLIAM Soorr.--This suit was instituted by
the Right Honourable John Sullivan, for the par-
pose of annulling the marriage of his son, John Au-
gustus Sullivan, with Maria Oldacre, Which took
place under the following circumstances :—Mr. Sul-
livan, jun. having left Eton school, was placed by
his father at Riching's Lodge, under the care of a
private tutor, who was to prepare him for the Uni-
versity. In the year 1815, he began to hunt with
the Berkeley hounds, which have made a considerable
noise in the country, and which were under the di-
rection of Mr. Thomas Oldacee, and consequently
Mr. Sullivan, jun. often visited at his house, where
he lived in a style and with a hospitality far superior
to that of huntsmen in general. Hence an acquain-
tance commenced between Mr. Sullivan, jun. and
Miss Oldacre, which soon ripened into intimacy.—
Mr. Sullivan, sen. seems to have been totally igno-
rant of this intimacy, being disabled by his public
functions from paying minute attention to his do-
mestic concerns. He therefore transferred the care
of his son to a private tutor; so that, whatever the

habits of the young man might be, /muck eguis at-
nibusgue, but not custode remoto. The Misses Sulli-
van once accompanied their brother to the house,
and the tutor was often there ; yet Mr. Sullivan, sen.
never heard of the intimacy which existed, either
from son, daughter, or tutor. The banns were pub-
lished in two churches, by the names of John Au-
gustus Sullivan and Maria Holmes Oldacre, and the
marriage was solemnized in the parish church of St.
Olave, Southwark ; Mr. Sullivan, jun. being nearly
18, and Miss Oldacre neatly 21 years of age. It is
impossible to doubt hut that Mr. Sullivan, sen. on
hearing the event, felt and expressed the deepest sur-
prise and regret; and,there is nothing remarkable in
his subsequent reconcilement, whilst he considered
the marriage irreversible. Mr. Sullivan having re-
ceived farther advice commenced proceedings against
Mr. Oldacre as the want-al guardian of his daughter,
then a minor, and afterwards against the daughter,
when she had attained her majority. The facts as
stated in the plea are but little controverted ; there-
fore, there is no necessity for me to go into the evi-
dence in support of them. Mr. Sullivan was totally
ignorant of the transaction, and his want of consent
is necessarily implied, for consent must be either
precedent to or cotemporary with the marriage.—
One point I lament much, that Mr. Sullivan, sen.
should unfortunately have put an interrogatory,
which in some degree reflects on the character of
Miss Oldacre; and I consider that I am but dis-
charging a debt of justice when I declare, that there
is not in this evidence a single word that can in the
slightest degree impeach her character. Her father
and mother both discouraged the young man's atten-1
tion. She was at first under an engagement to
marry a young man in her own situation in life,
which affords a strong presumption in favour of
the correctness of her conduct ; and the letter of

Mr. Sullivan to his father, although it may in
some degree be tinctured with passion, yet bears
strong testimony of her virtue and good qualities.—
It is much to be lamented that Mr. Butler, the tutor,
has not been examined, as he would have had it in
his power to have done her justice, and at the same
time have relieved his own conduct from charges of
gross inattentica. Much more has been said with re-
erect to disparity of age than I am inclined to give
attention to. It has been argued, that a ycung woman
understands manomvring, and tricks, and tactics suf-
ficient to deceive a youth who was three years her
junior; hut I must recollect that the young man has
gone through Eton school ; and, if I may judge from
his letters, certainly does exhibit a reater maturity
of intellect than usually falls to thelot of that age.,
Disparity of circumstances is a more serious objec-
tion ; but we well know that the passion which leads'
to marriage is very apt to overleap distinctions of
that nature. Laying such considerations aside, I
shall proceed directly to the case. At first, I sup-
posed it was to be argued as a conspiracy to draw
this young person into marriage, and the parents of
the young woman were pointed out as the conductors
of it. It is very natural to them to endeavour to pro-
mote what they consider as the advancement of their
daughter in life, and if that is done es ithout fraad, it
is too much to call upon the Court to pronounce it a
conspiracy.. Persons who are nut interested sometimes
take a pleasure in promoting the union of others,
and many follow the occupation from a there love
of the practice. When it is followed up by fraud
for the purpose of entrapping the unwary, it is pos-
sible that the validity of the marriage may be af-
fected; but if a young man of large fortune and
noble birth should be induced to marry a person be-
neath himself, after due publication of banns, no-
thing can relieve him from chains which, though
forged by others, have been fastened by himself. If
ten times the number of fraudulent circumstances
had been shewn, without undue publication of bans,
the Court could not have entertained this suit. I
have already observed upon the slightness of the
frauds which are charged in the libel. The daughter
is not at all implicated in them. Artifices and 'mit
representations ate charged, amounting almost to
spells and w:tclicraft, but not one witness is able to
explain them. The consent of Mr. Sullivan, jun. is
perfectly voluntary. A pretty strong distortion of
facts has been used to prove this a conspiracy. Mr.
Oldacre desires his daughter not to ride out with Mr.
Sullivan. Mrs. Oldacre desires Mr. Sullivan to ab-
stain from writing love-letters to her daughter. This
is called not only simulation, but stimulation. What
language were the parents to hold ? What conduct
were they to pursue ? Where was the delusion? He
was aware of her age and condition, and of his fa-
ther's ignorance. All the declarations arc on his side.
He himself writes the bans, and delivers them at
both churches. There are no advances on her part,
but a mere return of affection. The concealment
from the father is an act of clandestinity on the part
of the son. The silence of her parents is no act of
clandestinity, unless you prove a previous obligation
to communicate; but the law requires ro such thing.
The whole fraud, then, is resolved into a non-com-
municaLion of the fact to Mr. Sullivan, sen. The
case is then reduced to the simple question of the
publication of bans. The Marriage Act requires,
Ist, That bans should be three times published in the
parish-church where the parties dwell ; 2d, That they
shall indicate the true names and residences of the
parties; but these are required under different cir-
cumstances. A false description of residence will be
a mere inspesfiineetsins impeditimem, whereas false
names will operate as the impedimentum dirimens.
The true names of illegitimate children are difficult
to be ascertained. It is usual to give them the name
of their mother. In general, where there is a name
of baptism and a surname, these are to be used, un-
less a name be assumed afterwards by which they are
better known. In the case of Mather against hey,
the Lady, from a frolic and romantic jocularity,
would be married by the name of Wright: the Court
held that the publication operatad as a fraud, and
pronounced against the marriage. It can neither en-
courage dangerous levity, or destroy marriages by a
pedantic strictness; partial variations arise from va-
rious causes, and with different effects ; sometimes of
one letter only, as Dobbyns for Dobbyn ; sometimes
of more, as Widowcraft for Meadowcraft : at others,
the omission of a name, as in Puget and Tomkins ;
and again the addition of a name, as in the case of
Refer against Hefer, Tree against Quin, Dobbyn
against Cornick. These may arise from fraud, but
they may also arise from error or accident; but where
the variation does not so disfigure the name as to de-
stroy identity, it is open to explanation. If that re-

fern to causes perfectly innocent, the Cow
'cide that there is no fraud. If it is let,
then general evidence will decide the poit
must first shew that thete is fire! ,l
planation, before you can go it .to tab
stances of fraud. If there is no false
of bans, no evidence of other frauds can'
The falsehood of the publication is the sei
that, and every thing is proved without
I cannot think the name of Holmes insert
via Oldacre is sufficier.t to destroy her id(
explanation offered is, that she was bora
mother's marriage, whose maiden name tr
Her parents desired it might be iaseled
as a measure of caution. This is a re,
solutioi. of the fact. She was a
not have had occasion to have execz...ez
instrument, and the general use cf
have brought up unpleasant: recorsettl;:
mily. Nothing whatever is opposed t 2
nation. One circumstance is to my rat,
and it could not be used in fraud. 11-:
concealed, not 3laris Oldacre, t..ut
Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan, sea. did

person was in existence, and therrio,e
been deceived. if fraud had beta
have nestled in that part of the cate.
Puget, and all the cases, the uanse of t..
been disfigured. This name was au.%
purpose of snaking assurance daub
am convinced that this is tic view of
the law compels me to take—that tl.e k
marriage cannot be untied by the law. I
fore to prossounce, that Maria Hclites
the lawful wife of John Augustus Sli!
he is bound to take her home and aeat
jogai affection.
WESTMINSTF.R SI:SEIC;F.
THE KIN° v. rrivcozs.
This prosecution was instituted by
of the parish of St. James, agninst
for having, on the 18th of Mara; viee:

one of their watchmen, in St. Jam ct.s-...:

After hearing the various witne.tes,
was Mr. Peter -Walker, the Jury retr.,

of Guilty.

The 6eurt sentenced the Defendart ti
to the King of la and to be impr.sone
paid. A check was itnmediately gi:•ea for
and the Defendant left the Court.

Charles Lawson, a broker, residing in
Covent-Garden, was put to the br.r, on
meats, the first filed by the parish ef Et..
for a violent assault on Thomas Can:
Watchman; and the second, for crea:in,
disturbance at his house, anti
Wm. Radcliffe, Proprietor of the Three T.
said parish.-s-This case, as proved by the
was one of peculiar hardship against Mr.
who, by the conduct of the prisoner, had hi
ruined, having been taken on a Jndge's vt:
confined 4.8 hours, in consequence of wiri
turned out of his house by the Brer-ers.
fendant had also indicted the
Clerkenwell Sessions, and brought an ac
them, in the Court of King's Bench, at
(to neither of which he appeared) in order
vent the prosecution being proceeded ia.
The Prisoner called several witnesses to
charge ; but they wholly failed ; and after
genious defence by Mr. Attv, the Jury 1
guilty on both indictrnents, and the Court
him to three months' imprisonment on each
term to commence at the expiration of the
Williams Wall and IVinter were foe
of assaulting, on the 15th of March, Sul
man, a man of colour, and one Lithe B
Duke of Gloucester's Regiment of Guard
tenced to pay a fine of ll's. 4d. each, in r
of the Prosecutor having commenced
against them in the Court of King's Dear:

• MARLSOROUGH-sntnr.—Yesterday Joh
was finally examined, and committed to Nei,
take his trial for the murder of Jane Rogers.
was the fourth time the aLove urhappy tic
placed at the bar of this Office. His apparaact
truly ghastly, very much agitated, and he
so violently, as to be compelled to den
with both his hands against the desk. The
asked the prisoner if he had any thing to
answered, /Co ; but for the great ind..lgcs.ce
ness, and humanity of his Wo.-ship owar
begged he would accept his grateu:tl-.Jnk,
was then taken from the bar, in the =.7r.
and dejected state of mind.

BIRTH&

Wcdnedq, in Great cet. the Eght
Amelia Sophia Drummood. a daughter.
Tuesday, at the Vicarage, East-ham, Din, the
Rev, C. IL Rowlatt, of a daughter.
May 16, at Tain, the Lady of Dr. lictnedv,
Jana s, at Rozel, Isle of Jersey, the Lady cf P. FL
Req. et a gm