The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-11-20 00:00:00

It had been justly remarked that the public were sin-
tevested in this decision quite as much, if not more,
than the individuals who were parties to the suit ; and
J the slightest doubt could be entertained upon the
evidence, he should certainly bare postponed the ease
in order to have the benefit of Counsel, not, however,
having had the benefit, he should proceed to detail
those parts of the evidence on which he most relied.
The minority of the party, he conceived, had been
must clearly and fully established; in the first place
by the fathor t and nest by the aunt, who WWI present
at the birth, and both confirmed by the entry of bap-
tism. The aunt expressly states, that tie baptism
took place about # month after the birth, which was
on the 29th of December, 1793. At the time of
the marriage their was no doubt of the fatlaer's
being alive, or that his consent was abso-
lutely necessary. A circumstance to which the
c..art would luck with a jealous eye was the
length of the time that hail elapsed since the
marriage took place. In this case it appeared it %vas,
upwards of seventeen years ago, and that six or seven
children have been the fruits of such marriage, three
of whom are now living ; it is certainly a very hard
case upon those children, and if the Court could protect
them in any way, it is bound to use its greatest it 1
ence in doing so; but the law stands clear and impere-
tive, and if the proof is full and satisfactory the mar-1
rage stands null and void to all intents and purposes. I
;Acre were, however, some circumstances which rem-
dered this suit the less severe; in the first place, it !
was brought by the wife, not throwing her, as ICI
brought by the husband, destitute upon the world;
i.l the next place the party bringing the snit was nut
the person who obtained the license by her own per.
j•try ; this young woman could nut be supposed to
know by what instrument she was married, or how
that instrument was obtained ; all which considers-

tuns rendered the suit less distressing upon the gene-
• tally unprotected party. he only question therefore
to be considered WAN whether the consent of the father
had been properly obtained. The evidence stated,
that at time of the marriage the father was in
distresselircutustauces, he had lost a considerable
sutra of money, and was reduced to the necessity of
accepting a situation as warehouseman, in which be
rtecited only Pis. per week besides his I nerd ; had se-
sprat other children, three of tyl were supported
by parochial aid. The daughter in question liatt been
from her infancy residing with her uncle and aunt, at
about fifteen miles from London ; and it was therefore
very natural to suppose, if any person offered himself
to her, who was likely to maintain her with comfort.
that the father stand not object to the match.
Churley is described as a Unmoor House Agent. and
in the course of his business was frequently at the
wick's, where be wet the pro 1111 l ter of the present
suit. His advances it appeared were sanctioned by
the uncle, and the consent of the father demanded,
which was positively refused. The marriage, !low-
a ter, took place; the uncle gave a wedding dinner,
and three weeks afterwards he c 1111 l marketed the
clecuantance to the father, who was exceedingly
angry about it. The father certainly took no pro-
ceedings to annul the marriage, and hence it is infer-
red that he had no objection.to it. Whether the cause
of the present suit arose from unhappy dissentiuns, 4/7;
domestic bickerings, or from what tither Cause, it was
nut fur the Court to inquire: the only question to
which its attention was required, was to ascertain whe-
ther the marriage had the father's acquiescence or not.
Nobarquost aeoves-sk re could hare kakis's; to do with
Me rear, the law perfectly clear upon that point.
Previous conduct way be inferred from rulsscquent
acquier.cener, but such subsequent conilu.l can have
nu impression upon the wind of the Court. Here was
an express and unequivocal dissent, and the father ex-
plained his reason for such dissent, by the dissolute
character of the husband, he represented also to the
daughter the inapropiirty of such a match ; he *c-
rannied her of her delicate constitution, and assured
her that au alliance with this man at so tender au age
must me the absolute destruction of that constitution ;
he complained too of his want of domestic habits, so
that there was not only the absence of consent, hut a
trial disapprobation of the Mall altogether. So
sands the case, such the evidence; and the Court
roust satisfy itself how much this evidence was
e ther c rroborateil or contradicted. Now it ap-
peared that alter this first application for a consent,
it was never renewed, and the courtship was carried
on wholly without the klowledge of the father : these
rir..urnstances of themselves, were ',stung. corroboration,
and indeed the whole eyidrute of the stint and cousin
were of the same nature. It had been said that there
was no clandestinity or concealment us. d ; there cer-
tainly might have been none towards the uncle, lost
there u'as a great deal towards the father, who was
the proper person. The mode of obtaining the lirenee
was confirmatory of the want of consent : 1141 1111 C
mild be verytotril of gratuitous perjury, and it was im-
possible for him to have committed this act of perjury
tiloungh mistake; the girl was marl; years of age,
a; 1 it was ridiculous to suppose he was taut aware of
t sat when lie applied for the license. l'pon the whole,
ts.trefore, the Learned Judge entertained no doubt of
the want of cousent, °them ise he should certainly
hAte postponed the ease; and though the suit was
brought at a great distance of time, though it was dia.
Leasing and unfortunate to the children, though the
causes that gave rise to it were unknown to the Court,
vet the law .ras decisive, and the proof so irresistible,
tl.at the Court was hound to pronounce, in its judicial
tuitional% that this marriage was null and void to all
lutents anal purposes, and it protionneeil so a: rantingly.
livaxs,fir/aely called WNW/W. against blewsnow.
'this was a rase of a similar kind, which came on
o; tin the admissibility of the libel. The Learned
Judge took occasion to notice, that a filet uccorreti in
this case whicli could not be too publicly observed
npoa. as a cannon to those who might hr capped to
the danger of similar consequences. The marriage
• was contracted in a distant part of the country, and the
Surrogate who granted the license had done PO OH an
affidavit, which, on the eery fare of it, 'hewed that it
was defective. The affidavit stated, that the young
woman was wily 20 years of age, and yet there was no
attestation of consent by any parent or guardian on her
behalf. The Judge added, that this wasaut this lint
lestance of such negloet, which had
.fallen under his
observatiun. Some time ago. a Surrogate in the
eeeatty bail written to him, stating that be bad: