Star.
London, England, 1818-06-26 00:00:00

coNsislronY COURT, JUNE es.

GLROCK, GUARDIAN OF GEROCK, (FAL!:ELY CALLED
JONES) v. JONES.
This was a suit for a nullity of marriage, by rea-
son of minority and want of consent, brou,;ht by
Christopher Gerock, guardian of Elizabeth Cathe-
rine Gerock, against Charles Junes.
The marriage took place between the parties on
the Ist of July, 1817. It appeared that Mils Ge•
rock was born on the 23d or February, 180). The
want of consent on the part of the father vas proved
by several witnesses, one of whom communicated
the fact to Mr. Gerock, who appeared very much
hurt and agitated by the intelligence. lie immedi-
ately dismissed Jones from his.service, and ook steps
to set aside the marriage. Au objection was taken
by Mr. Jones's Counsel to the proof of the identity
of Miss Gerock at the time of the marriage, and
also to the evidence of Mrs. Gerock, she being the
wife of the party promoting the suit. _
Sir W1L1.1A74 SCOTT u;as of opinion that all d.,
facts pleaded had been fully proved: that it was clear
that Miss Gerock was little more than seventeen when
the marriage took place, and that it was solemli..ted
without the knowledge, and therefore without the
consent, of her natural guardian : that the identity
of the party was spoken to by a person who was
present at the marrage, and was admitted by Jones
to on: of the witnesses: that the evidence of the m°.
•I ther was necessary in suits of this nature, to do sway
all suspicion of collusion: that the marriage mutt
ther:fure be declared null and void.
TusIr..SWNEY V. TRELAWNEV.

rais was a suit for a divorce, by reason of adl

tery, brought by John Trelawney, against Caroline
Treh.•wucy, his wife.
Sir %V. Scovr stated, that the marriage took place
on the 17th of May, 1813, and that the parties co.
habited together until the year 1816, when Mrs.
'Trelawney took lodginfretantatnhe house of Mrs. Trout,
at Bristol. Captain Co came to lodge in the
same house, and an intimacy took place between him
and Mrs. Trelawney. She was in the habit of going
into his bed-room when her husband supposed that she
was gone for a walk. She was seen by Mrs. Prout
in iniecent situations, and, at last, in the very act
of adultery with Captain Coleman. A note was
also intercepted, containing a direct acknowledg-
ment of the fact. Mrs. AddisoN the mother of Mrs.
Trelawney, comes to expostulate with her on her
misconduct, and she is recognized as the wife of
Mr. Trelawney by the verdict of the Jury. Neither
does criminal connivance attach to the husband,
who has pursued the proper conduct on the occasion.
Ile is therefore entitled to the remedy which he prays.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DUBLIN, JUNE to.
BREACH OF BROMIC OF MARRIAGE.

HAWKINS I. KELLY.

This was an action for breach of promise of mar-I
siage. The damages were laid at, 1,0001. The plaintiff
in this case was a widow lady about the age of 60 ;
she had been a Miss Montgomery of Galway, and ofl
respectable connections and attractive pion ; at an
early qv Ale flurried Counsellor Blossett, a gawk-

inof eminence at the Bar ; after his decease she
marred Captain Hawkins, of the 47th-regiment; the
defendant, it appeared, had been a gentlemtn of
fortune in the County of Galway, and at present
was about 70 years of age ; he paid his addresses to
the fair widow ; several retest ludicrous love epistles
from him were read, and a contract of marriage
actually agreed upon ; on the 29th of September
last, he actually applied to the plaintiff, through
the medium of a female relative, and obtained horn
her fifty pounds, to buy matrimonial apparel and
other necessaries—this was on Sunday ; the next day
he paid a visit, en passant, and in the evening set off
for Limerick, and was married to a Mrs. Hamet,
a widow lady there, on the Wednesday following.
Upon the present action being commenced, the de-
fendant wrote the plaintiff a letter, in which he threat.
ened, that if she went to law, he would prove that
she had permitted him to take the greatest and gros-
sest liberties with her. This letter was stated to be
couched in terms so exceedingly improper, that the
Counsel, to use the words of the Noble and Learned
Judge, in his charge to the Jury, " dropt a curtain of
decency upon it," and waved the reading- in Court,
but sent it up to the Jury. No proof of the truth of
the allegations contaired in this letter was given.
The main defence was levity of conduct in the Lady,
but nothing more was proved than that she had been
married when very young to her first husband, who
was then an elderly Gentleman, and that, as is not
.very uncommon is such cases, her character was
freely spoken of, thoudi nothing irjurious 1..) her
fame could be established.—The Jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff, £250 and Costs. •