The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-02-11 00:00:00

741/LEE" OF MARRIAGE.

•)lITO, A LOIATIC (IT ills COAIIIITTKE), •. KVIAIA.
FALAILT CA1.113113 lISISELIP 11111111.
_

Mr. SWANKY, Proctor for the Committee of the Luna-
tic, anoouneed, that costs and alimony had been paid, in
obedience to the decree of the Court ; and hr exhibited
prosy of his party, which declared they would primed
no further in the cause.
' Mr. TOLLICR, Proctor for Mrs. Smith, applied to cor-
rect the sentence of the Court ; requesting that his party
',tight he permitted to establish the fart denied by the
other side, as to the validity of the marriage, and the
sanity of the husband, in opposition to the snit of nul-
lity, triiii.li was bronglit oil the gro ttttt l of his being de-
clared a4lunatic; and it kWh was now abandoned by the
C 11111 l nittee. Ile did not desire thin further i•videnesi
*hold be gone into fur the suite's defence, lint that the
Court %mild proceed upon the evideure already proilitril
, for her defence, in order to affirm the valiiiity of the
marriage to all intents and purposes; and by an affirma-
tive sentence to that effect.
SirclostiN Nicallol. demanded if any prece.lent was to
he found, in a cause of nullity of marriage, ii here the
Court was called upon to pronounce an aliirmatii c %ell-
tracv fur the validity of that marriaer, at the snit of the
defendant, where the party pr dug the twist• di-dared
they %mould proceed nu further?
lir. .1,14N101.11i t.'iouiewl for Mrs. Smith, answered, that
the opal amuse had hero to dismiss the parries from
archer tilisetatanie of jtistice. This, hones er, was'
I'v • different; and altogether a special case ; for this
wa
asat)
a question respeeting the validity of this marriage,
which as directed by tfie Court of Chancery. in order
to satisfy the Master, fur the purpose of itaiLitig his re-
port relative to a Chamery suit now peuding between
dm parties; it was, in fart, a suit of jorlitat i ea. Ti. i
issue directed was to try the validity of the marriage
upon the sanity or insanity of the party, tie Committee
of the husband denying ?fie validity of the marriage. on
the ground of hi* insanity. Now, in easier:- to MI,
plea, the wife propounded an allegation the the mew'
riage was little contracted by a 'minion in newel mint
Sir Jotis Ntriool,.—The i (mu will lave nu objection
to prononere for the validity of the inneriatte, hot itS
order to do so, it will be ueeeseary 11l Cr sow Ile* n
erilent, or authority in point, NO sholltat where the
part has declared they will proceed DO farther, that the
Court should be called tiptoe to pronounce an affirmative
sentence, ii here the isiarriage is attempted to Iso set
aside ; but the suit is al.:min:mused, awl of course t bat mars
riage remains valid.
Dr. Aesefiii.—There art. one or two precedents that
occur. Herr is ass allegation of the Cominittee, declar-
ing the marriage to have been contracted with an insane
person, whilst the allegation of the wife propounds that
marriage to have been contracted with a :sae person,
and her wititeeses have helm examined by a great HMSO
ot. interrogatories, to show that the marriage was ion-
: tracteil with a sane person : and by the evideure pro-
duced, she is enabled to make out that assertion ; oitider
these eiremestaurea she is entitled to an affirmative eels-
tenet: of the validity of that warriagv, 41flwrwilie the
i party would lose all benefit of the evidence she had Fe-
diatnll on her allegation.
! /4.ii.Juust N iciiim.—Woukl the affirmative mittens*
tin tIM case operate against any other party hut the
Committee, who declore that they proceed no farther ?
• Dr. ARNOLli.—Surelv it would operate agninst all par-
! ties questioning the validity of the marriage, by that sen-
' fence coming fruits the only competent Cutirt to pro-
nounce such marriage valid.
Sir Jou,/ N. ictimit.—Where a person charges another
in Mediation of marriage, and the Court is to try
whether that inarrigge had actually taken place, it is a
very different question Irmo that 0(11)4 Committee pray-
ing sentence ist nullity, and declining to j•.oci•ed further.
Mr. Aalloidi.--ealse party praying out to pniceed is
a manifest injury in this case, because I believe the ob-
taining an affirmative sentence in this Court would be
a bar to all other snits that might occur, either iu this
or in other (courts, upon time validity of this marriage.
Sir JOHN NICUOL.—IIUW can that be a bar to pro-
ceedings in other Courts?—a. 11. brings a suit of
nullity, anti C. H. sets np a marriage. I shotild be
glad to see some case iu which the Court has pronounced
for the validity of a marriage in bar of other suits.
I). AnnaLb.—lt is contended on one Laud that this
was a marriage coatratied by fraud with an ilium.
person ; on the other hand it is affirmed to have been
with amine pennon ; and if sentence was pronounced for
the vapidity of such marriage, that sentence would he a
bar to all farther proceeding., whereas Co. party here
declining to proceed is a mere failure of t.te libel, awl
amounts to no more than that the party have failed in
proving tire nullity of the marriage.
Sir JOAN Nicitos..—You already have your proof of
the fart of that marriage.
Dr. Annofits.—Yes, but the other part has itnpngnetl
that marriage; and I now pray this Court to proceed to
an affirmative sentence in bar of auv further suit winds
this dismissal of justiee would not effect. The husband,
for instance, upon fresh evidence, wig's& proceed again
in this Coed foe nullity of marriage. •The question
might be again opened in the Prerogative Court, sad
it would be open for the nt.xt of kin to question the
mere dismissal of this suit. I contend, therefore, that
Maly a definitive sentence would operate os a bar to
further proceedings: Probably the effect. of it essay be
it case of such snit resperting property by will in the i
Prerogative Court, arising out of this marriage, if such 1
alionld be attempted, as to question the validity of this
Marriage, may be attended with 'vomitus exneuce be-
yond that already incurred, and in thatmane the woman
be obliged to surrender her rights for want of means.
The costs in this proceeding would.be alone saffiriesit to
deter others from appearing for her; aryl she would put
I have the like opportunity of establishing the validity of
geeLgbee innefirige, iieranse the seine evidence could hii again
ot at, because the despots* who solemiiizeil the mar-
is actnalliktid NOM this suit rointhettreil. The

Chaomey. set of wl thiiireieimein4 Ono% 1•11 doom
he most other proceedings die infotainment
of the wife. She vroold Om" 4"111111
eery under very dlffetent MteartdatcA, If she mold
produce a definitive 'entracte with reggrd to title issue,
so that she might come from the competent Conte of
Jurisdiction to declare the validity of her marriage.
which could be neither misrepreeented or iiistaket.
Sir Jonx Nicsiist..—This snit being sew nooppeold. it
would only be an er-paree proceeding.
Dr..lnstoLn.—The party having -here declared they
cannot.proceed to definitive sentence, that they ran re-
sist nothing that is set up by the other party. Whilst
in going back to the Court of Chauceil, it appears only
that the libel which charged the marriage to baA hoes I
improperly solemnised has failed, which is merely a '
dismissal of the party. So that here was left room fee
misconstruction, in giving au explanation of the mean-
ing of this sentence. The marriage was here propound.
ed on the one hand, and denied on the other; and the
party establishing the validity was therefore entitled to
definitive sentence.
Sir Joon NICHOL—The Court will have no hesitation
in pronouncing for the validity of the marriage; but
Tau are insisting on the Court's pronouncing sentence
in a snit which is not at all resisted.

Dr. Antvoi.o.-11 is in fart a soil of jaetitation.
Sir Joni Nienot..-1 wish you could produce 11011le
precedent. I am very much disposed to go with you,
but not to open a door for collusive suits.
Dr. Aasotho.—l submit upon the evidence we are ma-
titled to an affirmative sentence. I only ask to rest the
case upon the evidence produced, in onto; to be published.
Sir Jour NICHOL—I Lave nu objection to pronounce
fur the validity of this marriage, hut whether you can
have it otherwise than at the expense of that party who
proceeds no further: and will not the Court of Chan-
cery understand the effect of dismissal where the party
pursuing declines to proceed, and that the marriage
therefore remains goods to all intents and purposes ?
Dr. Aaxot.u.—The impression is strong on my mind
that there are precedents, and we inns' search for them.
Sir J. is nut impossible but you may Sad
precedents in support of your case, where the Court has
rot-mkt' affirmatively of the legality of the marriage;
this Wilds the inference that exists upon the validity of
the marriage.
Anxiii.n.—lt is of great importance to the whole
family that this question should hr finally set at rest.
Sir J. Nictioi..-1 wool agree with vim that the
Court of Chancery oaud i not lie satisfied that this was a
sentence to all the world : fur the common principle is,
that the suit being dismissed is at an end with these
parties. I won't say to any other parties.
Itr..taximu.-11 oniy wish the Court would decide
the validity of the marriage, so that nu person can agi-
tate it again.
Sir J. NICHOL—There is a difficulty I wish to he re-
moved. The Court cannot pronounce an irregular sen-
tence, hut the parties may satisfy the Court by pre-
cedents.
Dr. Anon; was heard on the same side.
... •

Sir J. worm requested time to consider the matter,
and in the we. !ime directed a search for precedents.

COURT OF RICCFSE, Fsa. 10.

IMIT.ITIVE PEPPER.

TIIE KIXU r. grMARA.

T!iis was an information ag.inst Joseph Somme, an
oilman and dealer, for having in his !possession 56Ihs.
weight of adulterated or imitative pepper on the 12th
.114 lust.
Lord, an officer of P.xcise, who went to the house of
the defendant, proved the tindiug of As fabricated at-
' tic!e.
'file defendant admitted that he had the article in his
possession, but he hail bought it as long hack as the
year IMI3, seven years sitter, and lie declared lie ail
never since sold an ounce of it. When he pnrchailetbit,
lie was total by the seller that Is might call any
thine." instead of pepper. He hail used a little of it
himself, anal, fur his own part, would prefer it to what
was called " Kenai UP pepper," which pail so high a duty.
One of the Commissioners asked whether he was not
aware that be was at least committing it moral offence
having a spurious article for salt: It could nut he
credited that lie would himself prefer etch trash to the
genuine pepper!
The defendant declared he would, anal said. that as it
was " all nonsense for pour people to think of buying
real pepper," hr did not conceive it to be so bad an of-
fence to provide a substitute. Ve added, that he was
wholly ignorant of any .pct of arliament against the
sale of such an article. •
'l'lll. Excise Solicitor admittigl that the Ac' had not
passed more than a few days Iwevious to the fabricated
pepper being found 111)011 the defendant.
.The defendant then called the person who gave infor-
mation against him, to prove that he merelv got a um?l
of the imitative pepper, anal had not botiglit it from limo.
The evidence of the informer was objected to.
'rite defendant urged that 1 e was 'adored to keep the
article *Oh • view to his support, anxious as he was,
being in difficulties, to turn an honest penny. Still,
however, he never sold an ounce of the article. He was
at prevent under a rommission of bankruptry, and more-
over, hail fro wives and some children to support.—
(Much langhter.)
Lord, the otheer, said, that this was t excuse ori-
ginally set up by the defendant, when lirwent to Isis
house.
The Court adjudged the defendant to pay a fine of 101.