Literary cadet and Rhode-Island statesman. [volume] (Providence, R.I.) 1827-1829, 1827-05-19

\
M. Dsssn Huliock would not permit e 10 b.
rseOivsd in evidence, because il was pot psop-
| erIy sieaed.
Nm Bsoueaan. Mr. wshs6sid did sivsue
some money 40 well az the Champagns.
cannot say exsesly how much. lt mintk ba
about e 20, or e 30. Mr.. BrougAam--C-
perhaps & 4Os Tbs witness with peculiar
gesture, said. he I'D not keep accounts 80 nice I
! " as to speak to . few pounds. (MncA
laughter.) frr
Mr.. Brouehana.-whaa do you mean usu
| by the ordinary form &C the Church Of Scot
land, when It had nothing TO do with tho
church, Are you Clergyman Witness. No.
Of what trade are you! No trade.
Why, are you not an ostier!" Are you an
ostler' Much lasghter.)
How long have you lived whcyc you do nos
at Grstnas : For y-fve years.
What did you do before thats-f was poor
man.
What did you do when you were poor man
| Whatever could to get my bread.
What . ;cupation did you f6liow!--Seversf
| Name some one ofthein! i was merchant.
What sort Ut I.ercLant: q Scots pcdlay'---
Yee.
AK you again, Is il not usual in Scotland
for pasfies to be married by Cieygyman'-
Yes, but many are not.
Is IL not the more common course for parties
wanting TO get married, to 90 before a clergy-
r,an!--l do not know; many do SO.
IL not that the regular mode Of marrying
Yes, II is IL. Church.
BY Mr. Scarlet. What, then, is yours o..
irregular mode? No.
What form Of words do you use. Ifyou cor.e
before me, will tell you
Why, man, I don't want TO get married!
{aiuch laugh,er) Tell me what you said! I
asked them whether they acknowledged ea cii
other for man and wife; they said they did. I
then declared them TO be man and wife before
thrce witnesses
Mr.. Baron Kullock. This evidence, NJ.
Scarlet, is not worth a farthing. shall cX-
pcct some one who knows the law OF Scotland.
do not like this marriage.
Mr.. Scarlet. l shall! expressly call some
one else.
Mr.. Quillauq, tho house keeper at Calais.
| sworn and examined, by the medium Of an III
terpreter. know Mr.. Z. G. Wakefield. I re-
member his coming to rny Louse on the first Of
| March, 1926. There was a lady with hin,
whom he introduced as his wife. They re-
| NAMED there several days. and passed as rnau
and wife. She often went out with him.
BY Mr.. Williams They had two saloons,
and two separate bed chambers, in each Of
| which was bed, which were both used /,
was such o suit of apartments as married peo-
| communicated with zach other, as shown In
the plan now produced.
Mr.. Duncan M'Neil, sworn. ! have been a
writer to the signet upwards of eleven years
am sheriff depute Of Perthshire. I am ac-
| quainted with the law of Scotland relative to
! contracts Of marriage. I have he-rA A,'v OK
| animation Of tho wissAssss here to day. From
| what have heard Of the proceedings at Grct-
| ma, II is my opinion that in themselves they
| fuf vail
| heard Of any thing 70 take from me that opiu-
! ion.
BY MIR. Broughatl. As Scots lawyer, il is
| my opinion, taken by themselves, the proceed
Dgs constitute a valid marriage There was
formerly considerable doubt on the subject in
Scotland, but it was considered as settled by
the decision in Dalrymple's case. ] am aware
that three of the present judges of Scotland.
have sworn it to be their opinion, that such L
marriage is not valid.
Mr.. Brougharn. Do you not know whenever
the law Of Scotland is not precise, the civil O.
Roman law is referred Witness. Yes, do
MIR. Brougham DO you know that il is 4
general principle Of the Roman laws, that any
contract in which the consent was the effect OF
fraud, fear, or ioiuS g17aius, was null and void,
and not enforced by the Pretor,
Witness. ! 60.
Er Brougham. Do you not know that there
is an edict Of Justnan, commonly called no
veHa, by which the carrying away, and mary
ing female hy deception, is capital crime'
Witness. think there is such All cdct.
mr. Brougham displayed in the course of his
cross examination Of this witness, an intimate
knowledge Of Scotch law, and the principles
and practice Of the Jurisprudence Of different
countries, in regard to the law Of marriage, of
property connected with that ceremony, and OF
crimes that may be contingent upon the prae.
ticc Of any fraud, upon any breach Of tLr
law. he was both ingenious and good hr-
incurred.
by MI Scar,ctt---I have no. doubt that ]:
consent to a marriage be given by . party,
knowing what il was that they were abou'.
such n marriage would be valid, although tic
consent were obtained by iraLd.
BY Mr.. Baron Hullock. I never knew nor
heard Of any case, in Scotland that arose ont
Of such circumstances US have heard deposeL
&c in this case 10 day.
Mr.. Baron Hullock then said, think nyse,,
bound to admit the evidence of Miss Turner l..
this case. although in my own mind, l should
even be of opinion that this was a valid mar
| riagc There is a series Of cases in which i:
has been decided. that a wife may be wiz
| ness against her husband, on questions Of pe;-
| sonal droits. To reject her evidence would
involve an inconguty of which tho law cannot
! certainly admit; and it would establish in ia
| Your of persons wlo might he disposed 70 do
so. in many cases, power ofviolatihg the lav'
with impunty. II cannot be donbtod, that, in
any case Of injury done by husband TO T.
! wife, however legal the marriage may be, tho
| evidence Of the wife must be received, and she
will have redress for that injury. Then you
surely would not contend, that in a case whore
m TIC legality Of a marriage is more than
doubtful, the complaining party may give cvi-
Of Lxls