The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-06-17 00:00:00

CRELLIN V. LEYLAND AND MILLEN

This was an action to recover a balance of £1,609 odd,
which the defendants, who are bankers at Liverpool, have in
their hands to the credit of Miss Crellin, who has been lately
carried to Gretna-green by a man of the name of WGill in
the extraordinary circumstances which have been fully placed
before the public. M`Gill, upon returning from Gretna-
green, where the marriage ceremony had been performed,
was charged by Miss Crellin with having conspired with
other persons to carry her away and marry her by force ;
and the magistrates before whom the case was brought for-
ward at Liverpool, after a long hearing of the facts of the
case, committed to gaol to await his trial upon the
charge at the ensuing assizes. In these circumstances he
served a notice upon the defendants, calling upon them to
pay over to him the money in question, which he claimed to
be his property, in consequence of his marriage with Miss
Crellin. She, on the other hand, brought the present action
to recover the money; and in these circumstances,
Mr. Jervis, upon a former occasion, applied to the court
for a rule calling upon M`Gill and Miss Crellin to show
cause why they should not interplead amongst themselves
for the purpose of settling which of them was entitled to the
money. Upon that occasion Mr. Jervis read some extracts
from certain affidavits of Miss Crellin, tending to show that
she had not consented to her marriage, and that it was
violent and illegal. The rule having been granted upon the
former occasion,
Mr. Sergeant Murphy now appeared, upon the part of Mr.
WGill, to show cause against this rule. The learned ser-
geant read some passages from his client's affidavit, which
excited a great deal of amusement in the court, and the ge-
neral effect of which was to show that Mr. WGill's ad-
vances to Miss Crellin had all been made in the usual man-
ner, and that she had given a deliberate consent to every-
thing which had occurred.
The Court, without hearing the learned sergeant to a con-
clusion, thought that the rule ought to be enlarged, as the
decision of the present rule could not settle in any way the
serious question which was at present in controversy be-
tween the lady and the gentleman, and which would perhaps
be decided by the proceedings of the approaching assizes.
Mr. Atherton appeared upon the part of Miss Crellin, and
submitted that the rule ought to be discharged, upon the
ground that there did not exist in truth any ground for be-
lieving that the marriage ceremony and other events which
had occurred between the parties constituted a legal marriage,
or could have any effect whatever in divesting Miss Crellin
of the right to the money in question. In her affidavit she
totally denied any consciousness of any marriage, and stated,
that for some days before the alleged occurrence, she had
been kept in a state of intoxicated stupor by the administra-
tion of brandy, champagne, &c. The learned gentleman
added, that the pending prosecution could not have the effect
sphoonultdhe turn
charge aorugtetha fort wthheic marriage
he was
which
ohichhe
of.h
deciding the validity of the marriage, as the prisoner
mi
ght be convictedthoug u
tried, even hit
he alleged to have taken place was perfectly valid in law.
Mr. Jervis appeared for the bankers, and prayed that they
might be •
admitted to bring the money into court, and be
thenceforward allowed to go free from any further connexion
with the transaction.

The Court finally directed the rule to he enlarged, upon
the money being brought into court in the course of a week.
THE QUEEN V. ALLEY NE.
At a very late hour this evening,
Mr. Erle, adverting to this case, observed, that as he un-
derstood that the prosecutor would not pray any judgment
upon the defendant, being satisfied with what had fallen from
the court upon the former occasion, the defendant, being
anxious to be discharged from his recognizances, appeared
now to pray the judgment of the court upon himself, be-
lieving it likely that the court would impose only a nominal
fine.

Mr. Mellor, upon the part of the prosecution, expressed
his assent to the statement of Mr. Erle, except that portion
of it which related to the imposition of a nominal fine, to
which he (Mr. Mellor) declined giving any consent on the
part of his client. Although he (Mr. Mellor) abstained from
praying the judgment of the court. yet, if their lordships
should think fit to give any, he (Mr. Mellor) hoped that
their lordships would, previously to so doing, look at the
affidavits, and then deal with the case as they pleased. He
(Mr. Mellor) had not seen the additional affidavits at all.
Mr. Erle, holding up a large bundle of papers, observed
that they were ready to be filed.
Lord Denman observed that it was unnecessary to do so.
After a short consultation upon the bench,
Mr. Justice Patteson sentenced the defendant to a fine
of £lO.
The court sat until eight o'clock.