Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-05-25

the house: replied there were different sorts, and
amongst them ! mentioned Champagne, which wns
called FOR.
MIR. Scarlet WHO signed the marriage GER
thcse? Witness, l did, by consent OF all par
[, put in and read by the Prothono,ary, and
was TO the following effect
90 Kingdom of Scotland. Edward Gihbou
Wakefield, OF Pail Mall, Londsn, and Ellen Tur-
nsr. OF Shrigley Hal, Cheshire. do agree to become
man and vile" Signed by the witness with their
consent.
Dir. Baron Hullocls would not permit il to he
received in evidance, because it was not properly
sgned.
Mr. Laing.-Mr. Wakefield did gre mo some
money as we'll a. the Champagne. cannot say
exactly how much. l, might be about 30 or 10
pounis. Mr.. Brousham. Or perhaps 40 pouuds'
The witness. with peculiar gesture, said, he did
not keep accounts so nicely as 10 speak 10 few
pounds. (Msrh laughter,)
Mr. Brougbam What 10 you mean, man, by
the ordinary form of The Church ot Scotland, when
i, had neshios to do with the Church. Are you
eieTgymsn ?--Wuness No.
Ut what trade are you? No trnde.
why, are you not An osles' Are you an osi-
Ter! (Much iaughter.)
How long have You lived where yun do now, at
Gietns, Forty five years.
What did you do before that L was poor
man.
What dill you DO when you were poor man1
Whatever 1 could to get my bread.
What occupation did you follow? Several
Name some one of ttem?-I merchant,
What SORT of d merchant; a Scots pedlu!-
Yes.
ask you again, is il not usual in Scotland for
parties to be married by ccrsymen? Yes, but
May are not.
l. 1t not ;he conuiou COURSE for parties
waning TO get married. 10 neiore "a clergyman!
do not know; many do 80.
Is not that the riuulaI mode OF m Yes
it is in a Church
by MIR. Scarett- What, then, is yours an ire.
GUAR mode? No.
What form of words 20 you use: II you come
before me, will tell you.
Why, uan. don't want 10 get married! (Much
jaYsh'er.) Tell roe what you said? ! a-ked them
whether they acino ~edged enrf O her fol uian and
whej They said they did. then declare them
TO be man and wife before three witnesses.
Mr.. Baron bullock This evidence, Mr. Scar
let. Is not worth fsrIhing. I shall expect some
one who knows the law Of Scotland. I co no,
like this marriage.
MIR. Scarlett-I shill expressly call some one
else
Mr. QIillacq, the housekeeper at Calais sworn
and eSatniu Ell by the medium of an Interpreter. ]
know Mr.. r.. q. Wakefield remember his com
log to m5 house the ist of March, 1926 There
was lady with him, whom he introduced as his
wife. They remained taer. several days, and pass
ed as man ai.d VIE al! the while. She often went
on( with him.
BY Mr.. WIlliams-They hal two saloons and
tSy'' separate bed chambers, in each of yhIch was
bed, which were both used IL was such suit OF
apartments as married people frequently occupy in
France. The rooms communicated wiki each
oiher, az sheWn IN the plan now productd.
Mr.. Duncan Mcneil. sworn Il have been
writer TO the sisne upwards OF ! years | am
sheriff depute OF PertLshiIe. arn ted with
the law OF Scotland, relative TO contracts of mar
Tisge. l have heard the examination OF the wit
nesssS here TO day. From what ! have heard here
OF the proceedings at Gretns 1t IL my opinion thai
an themselves they constitute valid marriage, aud
have not heard oil any thing to take rem me that
opinion.
By Mr.. Broughsm As Scots lawyer, i, is
my opinion. taken by themselves. the proceedings
Constitute valid marriage. Cbere was formerly
considerable doubt on The subject in Scotland but It
was considered srtled by the decision IN p,l-
ry;npie's case. anu aware that three OF the pre-.
sent judges OF Scotland have sworn il to De their
opinion, iist sucn marriage is not valid
Mr.. Brougham--ito you not know whenever
the iaS OF Scotland - precise, the c.v,i or
RrRan law is referred to.-Rituess: Yes | do
Mr. Bfougham-Do you know that /. is a gen
erai Principle OF The Roman laws that any con
traci in which the con-enl the effect OF frau |,
Ter, or dotuS naiHs, was null and void, and nol
enforced ty the PI;e.or.
Witness do.
Mr. Bro"ghAm DO you not know that there
= sa edic' oi susHi9n, commonly called nOUeIia
oy when the carrying away, AMI marrying ie-
male by deception, is capital crime?
Witness. think there is such an eIirt
Mi Brough'm displayed 10 the course OF his
cross examination OF this witness an intimate
knowledge OF Scoich law, aud the principles and
practice OF the llrisprudence of different countries
ia regard to the law Of marriage. OF property con-
necied with that ceremony, and of crimes that ma
bs contingent upon the practice Of any fraud, or
upon any breach OF he law. lie was both ,ope.
Nous aud gVod-hun"ur-d.
BY MIR. ScaFiett-J have no doubt mat # eon
scot to a InfTrisse be given by party, knowing
what u was that they about, such 4 marriage
would be valid, si;loush the consent were obtain
Cd by fraud
BY Mr.. Bron bullock Il never knew nor
heard Of any 10 Scotland, that arose out oil
SUCH Circumstances as have heard depOsed tu IN
ths case to-day.
Mr. bullock then s1id think myself
bound to admit the evidence OF Miss Turner in TINS
case, although, III my own mind should even be
81 opinion that this V.aS a valid MARRIAGE Thgte ia
series OF cases 10 which has been decided ,hat
wife msy be witness against her husband, on
questions of personal dfos 10 reject her eyidenc.
would involve an incoOgruity OF which the law
cannot Certainly admit; and it would establish IN
favour OF persons who nigh, be dispo.ed to do ~,
ia many cases, power OF violating the law with
inPuaity. Ii cannot be doub ed, thai, M any case
OF injury done by husband 10 WIFE however
legal the marriage may be, lie evidence o! the vie
mns; be received, AMI she viii have teiress for
tbat injury. Ihsn you surely would not contend
tnsi Ia case wherein the Legality Of a marriage