Arches' Court, Monday, No...
The Times, 1824-11-30T00:00:00

r ne Parties iu this case are J. A. Sul3ivn, Esq. (the son: of the Right Non. J. Augustus Sulivas) and MIrs. Sillivan, his wite, ftntnyly AlUs% Maria Oldacte, a young lady who was tte daughter of hSr. Sullijans huntsman. Thereare m-any of our readers who well remember the eloquent and elaborate sentence of the present lord Stowell, when Sir William Scott and Jtide of the (Jonsistory Court of London, upon a suit protioted in, that &tout bv the father of' Alr.-Sullivan, then a miner, fbr rullity of marriage, by reasn of minority and undue publication, of bans. Upon appeal to this Court, the entenrce of the ower j1risdiction, which had afficrned the va lidity of the said marriage, was, conilrmed. After this, a se. paration between the parties waS forially-agreed to, and the miatter of the present cause arose out of subsequent transactions. Dr.-SWABEY opettd the proccedings, by stating thiat this was a suiit of separation and divorce. by reason ;F adulterv, laid by John 4nguitus Sullivan, Bsq.. apaiost Maria, his-wife., and brougbt up hither by letters of request ttom the Court of the A?chdea6onrv of Bucks. Thelibel brought in consiste ofgI-artic!es,.a 8tplc4tlexdcth 'marriage of thepatcontefh1'Agut116attehuho SG Olave, Southwark. For a fe- weeks jcer the m6rrianu- the lived and cohabited to, gether at lodgings In Alarvlebone, wben a suit was brought by. Mr. SuMlivan's father, Ur; Sutlivarn being hisn. self a rmnor, redonly 17veaxs,againstthe wife. who was notquite 21. On the 16tn of J.une, Il^Q, tiie Judge of the Consistor pro- nounced fer-the valitdity of .the. mrriWaggc and upon apneal to the Arch6id the sentpnce of that, :Coartc was affirmed. Ai the coin- fiencotnent of. these proceeiti es, llir. Sullivan, juu., went a6ronad; aed having become att c1iedt to the embassy oF Sir Chatles Stuartt did net retunr till the month of &kugust, .W22. nlnthl year 1821 articlezs e'f eparation belween' the prties Weragreed to,:by wibCh Mr. S.u11fivi stiputed, as the conAittons of lirn. Sul)ivun a consent, toalloi er 5001. a year, and to gie her, by iray of outfitt 1,0001. Ive-rsince Mr. Sullivan's depaiure for the continent., tie partesiiave-lived segarate aid apOrt; but the libel}pleade, tchat-in tIe manri0 ehsle Mrs. SulliWar had formed an udulitevtius qaamne'ionwitli SMir. (Goldney, with who-u ghe hadlived at veioti4 pplices under assumed names and by who-n she has had two cpildrie. The other facts bn filn-y9f iccd by the Court iii its gentelce, wenree ow l n to ad, tbat Dr. Siabey svas followed by Dr. P1LL1MORa and Ur. LmJe `NQyO, The-learned eouns6l fdr-rs. Sulhivan-maJe a powerfaLappealb to the Court, enlarging upon thctiegicee whiCl Mr. Sullivan had treat- ed his wife with, in dcaertiug her. Ior sq long aqperiod of thme-te large and equ&vetSlangnagc of the deed of_sepqration-tbe dcfective atlirp. of the proof as to Idenaity Ii9the misconduct.-- of the fiusband, -*hose opalicinus- desgriha ef hi8s -wife was3 ind&r the: clctminstances, such as ouglit to debar -hti frws tlVe "re. sncy.hu pia.yd The Ieurneil eonbtcl cited seseral eaes *frem D),- iaggard'e lle.iwdr inu- 3ch jutdgments of r_t,ee presentuLord Steow.lhp gone to 4eeSeme effict ~ and-aftes contendin.. thatto eo&bunngatt4ie;rpernened a swoaumn iea -1rs Stdhiatg; the tianguaga ofthc d.ee. Wasin fact alettF of encero coulm,t adultery,, calied on the utt,t, bR rejecing toe Jmaba'.d s isver to dd it eduty to pdbiMit5 .ui'crit,ptsr the sacredness of.matrlagi, whobs.rdi~ts thehtus *tsg ben aioteri by1si; dcgedeted S8wtldht,XfeColiltlio - Sir Joir Nruei otitobserved, ,tait td bee ftslly *iied that tha t ffu, adultery es ii th; c5 iteonlele ptovided n tamely, thatlthe pevsois'iipoiedlotl cotsnmittet th adulttery ciargeA, wqs, id (Iati ,mi illivat y c he iitaidwaswf-r es inlbrni~~~~~~~~~~ed, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 cotmpteely'wihdr5iw tiRtliegifin~g!6j~thl~yer. leuea nd ; . Dl Lter?hatmarziage,he weatabroad, beausetanit vas insitutedfor the porpose6fhhvmgfit declarednull nnd-void,. Ttatguititses lirought, not merely on account of a want-of consent of the parents. or of any suppoed inie$uality of contdition betveen ihe'parties, but (the marriage being by bans) on account 'lso of the mode of publscaion. It was ceisbratedin the church-of.a very populouspa- rish in thiscitv, in which the parties bhad no residence, (though tbat fas a question into which the Court was prohibited bv the Act of Parliament from entering); and the gezeral m'pdilatioin bIv vhich Mlra. Stllivan had been previously known to her fatnily and friends being AIaria Holmes Oldacre. she was in the bans simply termed " aria Oldacre." The Consistory Coart at Londob, aftersglemrs consideration of the case, which was then oneof great-novelty, de- elded ,or the validity of such marriage, and this CourL upon appeA, concurred in that opinion. It was during the pendingof' Itbisuit, that the young man went abroad; and the Court wounli attach no blame- to him on that a,eunt,r while the suit respectirg the marriage wa s yet undetermined; At first he ras attached for some time to the Britisb embassy at Pariis afterwards lih w visited in that capital by his father and'mother, and he did not return at all to England unstil the nmenth ofedbaru.-y822., lls wife, in the mean time, asserting herseifto be-his wife, continued tD reside in England; and thus far the vrhole history in respect ofthe transactions consequent on the dispute about the nmarrtige appeared to be sufllientlv accounted for. In Februarv, 1821, soos' fter the young mani had attained his majority, asd about a year beforehis ze- turn, a deed of sepaartion was executed-between him and his nif, by whichi he agreed to allowl her t5iL a year for her life, asdn'an oustfit of 1,0001. After this the wife lived at various plates; amang otbers st U- ld4hill, not far from Gersrd'ssrosss in Bucld5asliire, wisere Ier own parents reticled. In the sinme eighbourhoodlived &fami]y of the name of Goldney; ntid it was with a son of that family,that she was charged to have formed an illicit conoexion. This young man seerned to have been intimate witO the OIldacms before Lbe fanuilv of Ir. Sullivan came to reside in the vicinitty andbefore reth arriiigeof OariaVldacre wiLh Mr. Su'Lliva, itin. 1tvas onne- ceasary tO aceLthese parties to their different places of residence. (Irt the evidence it had been shown, that after i r.Goldney bad visited her in her apartments at Aaryleone, as her- brother, he removed with Mrs. Sillivan successively to Arundel-sreet, Strand; to lilot- tiugha,n in Rtnt; aLnd to a place calied Loosely-row, Bucks, itn all of which places they lived and cohabited together as husband d wife, soumetimes under one name, sometimes under asotsher, bot always in the greatest privacy and retirement, the tradesnpeople evn no F being alloved to enter the house at anl: some of the femaleser- vants they had enployed, however, spoke to having repeatedly seen theM in bed logethtr, &c.) It was very stfficientl shown, that A!r~. Sullivan and 'lMr. Goldney cohabited together in a srasl house at Alottinghanm, in Rent, from April, 2821, to April, 1822. Front a short time, thercfore,' before the return Or the husband from. the continent, they so lived together Vith great clandestinity. One of the witnesses, a.servant, tpolte tots. tO the fact of their residence for abOut six imonths in Nlson- square, Bl1ckfriars.road. At Looselv-row, dire. Sullivan -was de- livered of tw children of whom she adkmowledged Lilr. Goldney to he the father: the 7rst was a female child, born in Alarreh or April, 18-23. the secondi a boy, born in the present year. As for ber identity, she was about the,- times visited by tier brother's w -e attended by Air. Norris, a surgeon, who was a friend of Goldoeys, and by a nurse whio had attended Goldney's mother. All these personsiad been examined as witnesses. It was impossible, there- fore, to-entertain the slightest doubt about the arty's identity. This point was fuUll established; as well &&thelrusbandrd resl- dence abroad till February, 182; and, by- consequence, the cessation of aU cohabitation between him and his wife after their first separation. The identity and adultery of the wife beitigthusproved, and that adulterynot having.in,any wayoccarred with the connivance of the husband, it remained-to be considered whether there was any thing in the case wvhcht ought to bar him of theremedythat heprayed. Th-eargameetsinsuppurtfthie aflir- mnative el this proposition, as urged by the lady's counsel in ate elaborate specnli, vere, that in tle first place, by thus goiug abroad and continuing there for Six vears, the husband had been guilty of a malicious desertion; and second1y, thbt that malicious desertion raust be a bar to any proceedings ie tmight institute against his wife. w OWthe Court could not considersuch goingabroad ascomn- 1ing witin the meaning of a maUlcious desertion of the -ife; Ibr until the question as to the validitv of the mnarragehbad been decided, it would have beeR to deprive himself perhaps of aU remedy had he renewed his cohabitation with her. And it was not till June, 1819, that the appeal to the Arcbes vzas pmnounced upon; while that to the Oourt of Delegates had been finally aban- doned only at the beginning of the present year. In the next place, the acts of both parties proved that nto such sinister constrtion had been put upon the terms of the deed of separation as counsel had suggested; Mlrs Sullivan, on the contary, felt it necessmry to xcbrci5e the utnost clandestinity and cautioni in her connexion With MIr. Goldney; and M r. Sullivan hastened over to England on the first intimation he received from hii solicitor (who liatd been instruct- ed by an anonymous letter of tlhc nature of Mrs. Slilivan's conduct,j to institute tbese proceedings egainst her. As to the observatiose with whilch the learned counsel had concluded, weho had sidd that if the Court pronounced for this prayer, It would be inti- muating to young mnen in an clevaLed condition of life, t.hat they taight seduce, under the mask, th2 rame, and tmockery of mar- riage, the affections of virtuous yoiung womer of inferior condition, and ha-ring possessed themselves of their persons, at their own time abautdon them :o that d. ngerous contdition in which they would soon faml into errors that would enable those who had- ED nmarried then lerally to get rid of the bond of marriage; this Court really could not thlink that it would be acting consistently wiith any principles ot morality to held, that rit.s Sullivan was justified iia orumingan adulterous conr.exion, and ultimatelv in imp6sing, asby possibility msight be, a spurious issue o.M lier husband. 'The facts of her adultery being so fully proved, the Court was, on the contrary, of opinion that there wvas nothing itt the conduct of tbe husband that should bar hinm of liis remedy, and therefore felt it to be its duty to pronoulrce the sentencc ofseParation as prayed. -rod de.1 of Otberbrusnrncswas zSttans tcted. hn threesdits,-berein. the Judge's office was promoted by "Englund against Hurcombe," England against WVillianis' m aind " ngland ageaint Richardson.`" for brawling in church. the Judge prorounced the parties to be gulilty condemned thlcn in the cosrt, arnd sentenced them to sus- pension rb ingressu ccdeeir for the space of onae zronth. (These cabes arose out of the parochial sqeabbles itt whichi the parish of it. Ad ary, Newiugton, was last year involved. abou t the election ef its officers. Thie facts were all precisely sinaiLar to those -we have already two or three times reported in 'the Judge's office pro- ,noted ,b Palrmer against Roffey," and "Palm^r against Tijou," in this Court . - I . ARCHES' COURT. NION'AV- Nn,. _FJ SULLIVAN AGAINST LLivsw