Star.
London, England, 1828-03-17 00:00:00

* "

IMPENAL •
nil
e • fikv. IA HOUSE OF •LORDS.
EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF MARRIAGE.
Ak, .4 \lb 10 „ Fjclay last, the hearing of one of the most extraordi-
nary cases, in regard to marriage,-that has ever oc-
cupied the attention of Jodge or Counsel, com-
menced, and will be continued to-morrow, at their
Lordships Bar. The appellant is MARV BLACK
MACNEILL, daughter of the late Dr. James Macneill,
of Stevenston, in Scotland, the respondent MALCOLM
MACGREGOR, printer in Edinburgh, and a widower.
The celebrated case of Dalrymple against Dal-
rymple," on the occasion of giving the judgment in
which, in the ConsistorialCourt of London, on the 16th
of July, 1811, the venerable Lord Srowam., then Sir
William Scott, delivered one of the most learned, argu-
menta:ive, and eloquent expositions of law applicable
to marriage—a judgment which set the question at rest,
bow far a clandestine marriage, or, as in that case,
rather promises of marriage, exchanged between two
individuals in Scotland followed by other circum
stances, was or was not, by the law of Scotland, a valid
marriage, annulling a subsequent marriage celebrated
in London by the husband, on his return from
abroad, and that in the most solemn and regular
manner, .with an English Lady. one who, for beauty
and attraction in fashionable life, was admired by

all. These mutual promises we.e written and ex-
changed by the panics in Scotland as follows :—sB I
hereby declare that A. B. is my lawful wife;' and on
the part of the Lady, " and I hereby acknowledge C. D.
"as my lawful husband." This, followed by other
circumstances, was declared to be, by the laws of
Scotland, n valid marriage. The Lady was in Scot(,
land a member of a distinguished family, and was
ignorant of the marriage celebrated in London, and
Lord SrowiLL, at thi close of his admirable spisech,
when he pronounced judgment, observed, •' If
" innocent Lady has been betrayed into a marriage.
" which conveys to her neither the character nor
" rights of a wife, I cannot upon any evidence which
" has been produced, think that the conduct of Miss
" A. B. is chargeable, either legally or morally, with
" having contributed to so disastrous an event." Thefiret
marriage was declared good, though irregular and clan-
destine ; the second invalid, though publicly celebrated
and consummated. The present case, however, of
MACNEI LI. and M ecoaenoa, was attended with peculia7
circumstances. MACGREGOR claims MARY MACNEILL
as his wife, asserting that they were privately married
by a sell known Scotch celebrator. After this privet*
and clandestine marriage, MARY MACNEILL was ad-
dressed by a Mr. JOLLY, a surgeon, who was accepted
They were regularly married on 13th June, 1816, and
of that marriage there are five children. When MAC-
GREGOR brougl,t his action claiming the Lady, she
denied that she was his wife; and asserted that he was
well aware of her attachment to Mr. JOLLY, almost
from it- commencement; and was in the entire knowledge
of their marriage; be offered no interruption; on the
contrary, he saw the appellant and fille.,..loLLY frequently
—accepted from them a present oa occasion of their
marriage—drained bumpers to their health and prospe-
rity—was assiduous in his attention to them as married
rersons. For about a year after their marriage, MARY
MACNEILL, or J.•LLY, continued to live with Dr. MAC-
NEILL, who had paternally regarded her, as his daugh-
ter, with affection. The old Gentleman died on the 15th
of May, 1817, leaving Mrs. JeLLy the whole of his
property. On this event, it is said, MACGREGOR
even congratulated Mr. and Mrs. JoLLY, continued
his visits as before; and for more than eighteen
months after their marriage, in public and in private,
and in every possible way and manner, be recognised
the Lady to be what she contends she is, has been, and
will continue to be, to the end of the chapter. MIS.JOLLY,
not Mts. MACGREGOR. The Lady became rich, by her
father's will, in 1817, a year after her marriage with Mr.
JOLLY. In 1818 Macnazooa brought his actipa, claim-
ing Mts. JOLLY and all belonging to her, by virtue of his
alleged private first union. Of coarse the respondent de-
nies the Lady's story—his case is all the other way ; and
the Scotch Court found that the first marriage, notaith•
standing the circumstances as to the second, is alone the
valid marriage, and upon the fate of her appeal to the
House of Lords will depend the question, whether Marty
MACNEILL must be the wile of blaczeLGoa,a widewer,or
the wife of Mr. JOLLY, who gained her heart and who
is the father of her five children ? The question is one
of the greatest importance. The Lady cannot have
two husbands—that is certain ; and as to the Reverend
celebrator of the marriage, he was indicted before the
Justiciary Court at EclinWrgh. in February or March,
1818, at the instance of his Majesty's Advocate. The
verdict found him guilty of celebrating clandestine
marriages stated, and of uttering, with one PEARSON,
as genuine, counterfeit certificates of proclamation of
banns, knowing the same to be so. He was transported
f tom Scotland for life. Tt t general reason stated by
the appellant, MrS.MARYMACNIELL, Of JOLLY, why the
judgment of the Court in Scotland should be set aside,
is, "that In the whole circumstances of the case, MAC.
GREGOR has not proved his alleged marriage with her;
and that she shall be Mrs. JoLLY still. The respon
dent's re.esons for qffirnring the judgment are:-1.
Proved that MACGREGOR and the Lady were married
in May, 1816, by a Minister of the Kit k of Scotland,
according to the legal forms. 2. In doing so the Lady
was not under force, fear, fraud, or other objection to
the presumption of freely given consent. 3. Proof of
consent to contract, implied in celebration; and the
validity of marriage once contracted; cannot be affected
or impaired by any circumstances in the subsequent
conduct of the parties.
Lords ELDON and STOWELL were present on Friday.
Lcrcl Etno:s called the attention of the House to
the fact, that the action by the claiming husband
a as not merely one of dealt ater, to establish the prior
marriage w ith reference to its civil consequeeces, but
also a wit for the restitution of conjugal rights;
and then it came to be a serious question, whether a
man. after having, in the manner stated, tent his wife to
another without making any claim to her, until she
became possessed of a considerable estate called Ste-
veastone, could be allowed to succeed in a precess for
compelling a wife to leave her supposed husband (JOLLY)
and the five children by him; and to live with the claim-
ing husband as his wile, after his having so acted. This
is, indeed, in all its bearings, a jolly matrimo. iel
squabble! All that legal learning can do, has been,
and will be done, to award justice between the " con-
tending swains" and the strangely involved heiress of
Stevenstone." For the Lady, Dr. JEERER, Mr. WILSON,
and Mr. T. 11. MILLER, of the Scottish Bar, appear;
for MACGREGOR, the claiming husband, Dr. Lusnino-
tom and Mr. KEAY, 01 the Scottish Bar.