Star.
London, England, 1827-07-09 00:00:00

instituted in the- Consistory Court, which pronounced
that the husband had Csiled, and dismissed the wife...-.
The suit was then brought by appeal before this Conn
The question was, whether the parties could be consi-
dered, in the terms of the Act-S Geo. IV. e 75. see. 2.
as so living together as husband and wife up to 4141
passing of that Act r itivlivich ease the marriage, though
invalid under the old Martlage Act of 26 Geo. IL would

be confirmed.
Dr. ARNOLD, for the respondent, contended that, al-
though it might appear a solecism and inconsistency-to
maintain that parties living apart from each other were
living together as man and site, yet the proposition
was perfectly true, taking die former part of it in inch..
slaty and colloquial sense, and the latter in its legal act
ceptation. The matrimonial tie was still sub.isting be•
tween these parties, who had done nothing to shew that
they, in legal sense, renounced it; and if this class of
marriages was not provided for by the clause, the Le-
gislature would have failed in doing what it was their
declared intention to do,—namely, remedy a grievance
occasioned by the old law.
Dr. &uniforms, on the other side, observed, that if
the clause in question bore the construction put upon
It by Dr. Arnold, its effect would be to bastardize the
issue of many marriages contracted since 1822, on the
presumption that a former marriage. in violation of the
old law, was altogether invalid. 'The Act of S G. IV.
e. 71, was passed to render valid marriages previously
ipaofodo void by reason of a want of consent of either
party ; and the object of the second clause was to render
valid not all, biat certain marriages, where the parties
cotitinued to live together till death, or till the passing
of the Act, or 011 they discontinued cohabitation for this
purpose, or during the pendency of a snit for annulling
the same. The true meaning of ti continuing to live
together' was, continuing to keep up the association of
husband and wife in a manner which shewed an adhew
rence to the nuptial tie. The object of the Statute '
to relieve parties who had observed, and still observed,
their nuptial engagements. from being considered as
unmarried; not to joie persons who had lived eight
ears apart, and bad actually abandoned their marriage.
hese were not the aggrieved pawns whom the Act
professed to relieve.
Sir JoHN NICROLL, in giving sentence, observed, that
the question was an important one. No inveiglement
or unequal alliance was alleged in the present case.
Althobgh the father of the man condemned the mar-
riage when he knew it, the objection was founded upon
the youth of the parties, and their inability to maintain
themselves. The bond executed by the husband, and
accepted by the wife, was no act of legal separation; if
a child had been afterwards born, it would have been
• regarded as legitimate. The case depended upon the
construction of the Act of S George IV. c. 75; and
wilco there was an ambiguity in the terms of an Act,
It became a question whether the interpretation should
be liberal or strict ? Now the object of the Legislature
was-to render valid all marriages of minors without
consent, unless there bad been some act done which
'hewed they considered the marriage as void, before
the pasing of the Act. The presumption was
strong in favour of the fact of marriage: sayer
preen:miter pro statriotonio was the tole of law, and
also of morality and justice. Tne facts of this individual
case were not material; but they spoke little in favour
of the husband, who alleged his own perjury as ground
for relief. That the construction of the Act should be
liberal, was shewn by the preamble: it was a remedial
Act passed to relieve parties from evils and injuries.—.
Looking to this rule, the living together was to be no-'
derstcod where the marriage obligation was recognises
'`.• whether the parties resided in the same house, or, fi
the sake of convenience, or from absence abroad,
separated from each other ; for these consentietst sepal.
twos were not recognised by law, unless accompanied
by some legal acts. lie (Sir John Nichol]) should Win
thus far be strongly disposed to hold that, in this case,
the parties lived together in the eye of the law, although
they were apart. But, whatever doubt the Court might
entertain of the clause itself, the subsequent exceptions
confirmed the view taken of it, for exceptio probed
replant. The exceptions in the Act were—lit, where
the marriage had been declared invalid by a Court
of competent jurisdiction ; secondly, whets another
marriage had been contracted by one party in the
life-time of the other; thirdly. where the invalidity
of the marriage had been decided or acted upon
sn any trial at law ; and fourthly, where a sentence
had been passed where a Court of Law or Equity had
presumed the invalidity of the first marriage. Neither
of these exceptions applied to the present case. This
Court. therefore. concurred in the view taken of the
question in the Consistorr Court, affirmed its sentence,
and remitted the cause.