The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-11-22 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

LOND9N LAW AND POLICE COURTS.

LAMBETH-STREET.

EXTItAoan[NARY~PPLICATION. —On Wednesday last, Henry
Murray, a young man, with a most care-worn aspect, applied
to the presiding u.agistrates, Messrs. Hardwick and Halswell,
for their advice as to how he was to act under the following sin-
gular circumstances:—
The applicant stated that on the 19th September, 1835, he
was married by bans, in the parish Church of Christ Church,
Spitalfields, to a young woman named Elizabeth Smith. After•
living together for about four months his wife returned to the
house of her mother, in consequence ofhis being at the time out
of employment, and though he bad used every means in his
power to prevail upon her to return, it was all to no purpose.
Some days ago, after a long correspondence with his wife, he
received a letter. The applicant here handed to Mr. Hardwick
a letter, which he read, and of which the following is a copy:—
"October 31, 1836.
" Sir,-1 am requested by Mrs. Ann Gutch to inform you that
your claim upon her daughter as your wife is now invalidated,
by reason of her name not having been duly registered as re-
quired by law. It has been necessary that she should be re-
christened, by which she has received the name of Hannah Anu
Gregory, in exchange for her late name of Elizabeth. You are
hereby given to understand that she is your wife no longer, and
she is now at liberty to wed whoinevet she pleases. Caution is
hereby given you that, should any disturbance, molestation, or
interruption take place on your part, magisterial influence will
be immediately resorted to.
" N.B.—For the purpose of ascertaining the validity of the
said christening apply to the vestry of the parish of St. Ann,
Limehouse.—Y ours, &c. "Ca AA: LES CLIDIENTS.
" I beg leave to add that the disannulled certificate of your
marriage is hereby returned, being now of no avail whatever."
The applicant proceeded to state that, i❑ consequence of the
receipt of this letter, he proceeded to Limehouse Church, and
there ascertained from the Rev. Mr Williams that not only the
christening alluded to had taken place there, but on the same
day the banns had been put up for the marriage of his (appli-
cant's) wife with another man, and by the advice of the Het.
Mr. Williams he came before their worships.
Mr. Hardwick.—What do you meets us to do for you; we
cannot restore to you your wifj; what is it you require ?
Applicant.—l want to know if I can prosecute my wife abbe
should get married in my absence, as I am about going to sea;
and if I did, whether or not the expenses would fall on myself?
Mr. Hardwick.—What was the name she went by when you
got married to her?
Applicant.—Elizabeth Smith. •
Mr. Hardwick.—Was that her real name?

Applicant.—Yes, Sir. •
Mr. Hardwick remarked that it would form a stranKe era in
the laws and customs of the country, if the mere circumstance
or ceremony of a second christeniug was to have all the force of
a legal divorce in separating wife from husband, or husband from
wife, and to screen the parties front legal consequences. Theie
could be no doubt, if the statement of the applicant was true,
his wife would subject herself to a prosecution fur bigamy by
marrying again.
Mr. Hats well asked who Mr. Clements, the writer of the letter
that had been read, was ? and
The applicant replied that he was brother to the young man
to whom his wife was about to get married.
Mr. Halswell also read a letter addressed by the applicant
some time ago to his wife, in which he complains of her conduct
in encouraging the young man (Clements) as a suitor, and cau-
tions her against doing that which report attributed to her,
namely,
.getting married to him, she being his, the writer's, law-
ful married wife, and concludes by hoping she would acknow-
ledge her faults, and return to him, her disconsolate and lawful
husband. On thei other side of the same sheet of paper au an-
swer is written by the wife, in which she expresses her astonish-
ment that he should presume to call her wife, and cautions him
to say as little as possible of their illegal marriage, lest her mo-
ther might take it into her head to sue him fur het (the wife's)
maintenance while she was away from him.
After reading the letter through, Mr. Halswell expressed a
similar opinion with Mr. Hardwick as to the wife's liability to
be indicted for bigamy if she married again, and told the appli-
cant that the expenses of the prosecution would be paid by the
county.
The application, from its novelty, excited a good deal of
laughter among all present, except the applicant, who seemed
very dolorous indeed.