Consistory Court, Tuesday...
The Times, 1824-07-21T00:00:00

rIhe business of this Court, as is usual on the by-day of the term, was to-day particularly heavy. HtULSS V. rtTLM. This was a cause of separation and divorce, by reason of adultery, promoted by irs. IHlm, the wife, against her husband. The parties moved In at inferior station of life, Hulm being a publican. They were married in January, 1819, and separated in January, 1820. IV e have already more than once been called upon to notice the par- ticulars of this case, of which it mav be suflcient to say, that it de- veloped many scenes of vulgar and disgusting profigacy-such as the repeated intoxication of the husband; his inordinate abuse and violence on his return home at night ; and the ferocious menaces vith which he constantly assailed his wife. At one tiane-she being then in a state of pregnancy-he threatened to run her through the body with a red hot poker: at anotber he swere ihat he would stab htr with a case-knife, and was absolutely in the act of pursuing her round the bed when the auraeientered the room and threw herself betweenthem. itappeared also,that bebad oncekicked her severely on the hip, and that these various acts of outrage had had a very severe effect upon her health. There was for some time a female servant living in the honse, of the name of Anne Hughes, with whom HuIM Was chaTged to have committed adultery during his cohabitation with his wife, or at any rate subse- quently to his separation from her. It was proved that this voung woman was in the habit of taking her meals together witb the Hulms at breakfast; but the legal proof of liversity as between her and 31rs. Httlm was somewhat incomplete. To establish her identity as Anna Hughes, a singular mode of proof was resorted to-namelv, the factof her linen being marked A. H.; but further, HuIm's own declarations were proved-" that he was living with Ann Hughes." Dr. JEssx ADDAMS, on the part Qf31r. Hulnii, took several ob- jections to the suficiency of the proofas to the charge of adultery; and contended, that notwithstanding Afr. Helm had used very brutal language to bis wife, and had been guilty of outrageous conduct to her, that language and condtict did not come up to such a case of cruelty, as in tlhe practice of that Court was deemed sufficient to found a sentence of separation. Dr. LUSIUINGyTON, fer the wife, submitted that the case was one of aggtavited cruelty, and that this was proved to be a case for the judgment of the Court, by the mischievous influence it had exercised upon Mdrs. Hu'm's health. The learned counsel then went into a long examination of the evideace, to show that adultery was clearly establis.hed as against Mtlr. - hulm and the "fact being so, he maintained that it was immate- *il whether the identity of the parties with whom it had been com- >ajtitted was or was not clearly made our. It was enough that the ourt had it in proo$-that the fenale with whom Air. Hulm had been cohabiting since the separation of these parties was not his wife. On these grounds he prayed the Court to. pronounce for the seperation. Sir cmtis'rorruEt ROnrNsON in the conclusion of his judg- ment, nai4, that he saw nothing to maakc him doubt that the particu. lar eidence in this cate was quite stringent to-prove the charge as laid, both of cruelty and adultery; and therefore he pronounced for the divorce, as prayed by the party. YAGG AGArNST SERGEANT, OTHEMW55E LOtLD, OTHERWISE FARRItINTON, PALSELY CALLING HERsELF FAGG. i This was a cause of nullity of marriage, by reason of undue pub- lication of bans, i -consequence of the assumption of a false, or unaccustomed namneof the retenged wife, against whom the suit waspromoted by Fagg, -the hsusband. LBy the newv marriage--3ct, (the act of the 2d (Geo. IV.) the old marriage lat was left injrespect of marraiges by bans in full force, in all that regards trtn and ac- curate publication of Christian and surnames of parties, &c. And therefore, the old law having declared thatih every case, where there shall be a defect of these ptrticulars, such marriage shall be ipso fittonull 5nd void. The same consequence, it seems, still enuras under similar citcumstances.l THe substaneq of the case; as we collected itfroin the libel,is_this_ Harriet .Srgeaat, otherwise Lord, &e,,-thedaughter of- William 8argeant and Dinah, his wife, of the parish of Westlihiltington, in tne countY of Sus1sex, was born in. 179; anghbaptised, on the l5th of November, of that yearz by-the nameof " Hfarriet" only- and an entr-y of such baptism was then made id the register.bbok.of baptisins-of the said parish. In the year-1820, Tbtnnas Fagg (the ,Son, it was stated, of an opulent coacli.mastkr) becarne acquainted, with Hatniet Sergeant, then residing ln East-street' 'Kenningtop,- cross. 4ngssi,a p , bY te name -of Mrs. ford. - She represented berefltorbe.the Wfe of Mr WalterLord, who haa rhnrried ber she lauif and afterwar.sdescrted hOd; andfron thisperiod tilla very siidrt time preceding her rsarriagewith Mr. Fagg, on- the-Sdof3ne 1822-, se went by no othet aame than, "-Lotd." A very litle my babetratle event just mentiohed,, she. inbrrned MJIr. Fagg that her naiden ime -a w as- Xnrgton " .a'd .IbaC her ma Tiage -with Walter Laord waa.ns:o-. bind?tsgst4ecause, s s8he hnad learrnafifrm good atibtth hhee marld&JIs eiss tohetr nwlsunigtwth-}huii, -tis dyib..Sp~aln.r-Uedib' ;went' onl fo ple4d that ubdertach-rejt;een gonsYsgg. aUlo~&iemiself ta be. as .l; persuladled to marry the party on the day aforesaid, at the parish church of St: Mary, Rotherhithe. The 8th article pleaded that, as, soon as hey Fagg, .discovered that the marriage between.hsimself aild Harict Sergeatit, otherwise Lord, &c. had been had without any due publlcation-of bans, he, some time in June, 1823, with. drew himself from all turther cohabitation with her. and they have ever since lived separate and apart from one another. A prelimi. nary article recited the clause of the act of the 26th Geo. II. (commonly called the Marriage Act), which regulated, and still regulates, marriages by' bans, as to their publication, &c.; and the libel, having set forth that Harriet Sergeant fe been known for years before her pretended marriage with Fogg, bythe name of "Lord" onlv, concluded with the usual prayer. Annexed to the libel were 'three exhibits, viz. an extract fronm the register-book of baptisms in the parish of West Chil- tington, in the ceunty of Sussex; another from thc bans-book of marriagces of St. Miary, Rotherhlithe.; and anoihe-t from the register- book of marriages of the same parish. Upon the libel seven wit- nesses were examined, and among them Wim. Sergeant, the father of the party proceeded agai5st4 Thomas Fagg, the father of the party proponent; andt W. Hind Lord,'the latter of whom deposed that his a eceased brother formerlv cohabited with Harriet Sergeant; and that he, the witness, had, sin'ce that brother's quitting her, remonstrated with her on the illegality and impropriety of using his name; to which rcmrnstrances she had replied by a threat of producing a cer- tificate of her marriage widt Lord, but this ulocurnent she had not been able so to produce. There was no sort of evidence to show that she ever had assumed, or was known bv, the name of Farrington, prior to a date somewhat anterior to her mnarriage with Fagg; and a Mrs. Allagson, who was a neighbour of hers? spoke to the remark. able circumstance of seeing her engaged in writing at a window a (lay or two before she becarne Mrs. Fagg; ancd to her replying, on being asked what she was about, that she was practising to write her maiden namue. The witness asked what that was? and being told by lher " Farrington," remarked " that slic never knew or heard that before." On the'part of alrs. Fagg, no plca was given in. Dr. SWABEY and Dr. JENNER, for Mlr. Fagg, submitted that the evidence of identity and false pubUcation was complete; and thati on account of the latter, the marriage must, upoII every princi- ple, be pronounced null and void. Dr. 1JUSIXsNGTON and Dr. DODSON, contr2, argued that there was no evidence to show that the name of Farrington had not been as commonly used by this lady as that of Lord; and the clear rule to which the juldgments of this Court had ever adhered was, that that which Ywas the name of the party by re- putation, nwas the name under which the bans ought to be published; for inasmnuch as the object of their publication was to infirm the world as well as the more immediate connexions of the parties who they v4ere that were about to contract marriage, the designation by which they were beat knolvn must be most efficient for such a pur- pose. So that it might hap,pen that genuine names would malke an invalid publication, and assumed ones a good publication. 'I'lTe learned counsel comptained heaxvily of the niannser in which the evi. dence-in this cause had b-en taken, and of the extraordinary men- grcness ant scantiness witb which the whole deposition's l ad been rendered. They iurther objected, that the exhibits in the cause were no sufficient testimony to thc matters in proof oF which they were brought in. The clergy,nan who married the pitrties, or somne one who had heen present at such marriage, ought to have been examin- ed; and finally they submitted that tItere was nothing.in the cause to found the prayer of the party. Dr. SwABEY and Dr. .JENNEit replied. Sir CsURISTOPE?ER RoBarsoN stated, that if it depended on the feeling of the Court to disrense its sentence in this cause it would certaiuly reject this application on the part of Alr. Fagg. i'ha case p resented itself under very different circuinistances from those in whichi it would have stood had these parties been-the husband a youth, anti the lady of a more mature age; but it seemed, that at the time of their union he was about 22, and she not more than 24. Hle, moreover, was informed by her of the kind of situation in which her asserted marriage with Lord had left her; and both of that circumstance, and of her intention to assume the name of Farring. ton, which she described as being her maiden naie to him, Mr. ragg was fully possessod both before and at his marriage. The Court concurred with counsel in expressing an opinion upon the in- sufficiency of the evidence on many the most material pasts of the case; but it would not now rescind the conclusion of hie cause, to allo0 an opportunity of amending that defect by the intro. duction of adllitional witnesses. As this was a case of much im- portance in a public point -of view, the Court, however, wvould. take time to consider the great variety of causes which had been cited by counsel; and woulds prepare to give judgment in the commenec- ment of next term. PAIN AGAINST PAIN. This was a stlit of separation by reason of cruelty and adultery. The present application was for an allotment of alimony pendette lite" to the lady. After a desultory conversation be- tween the Counsel for the husband, who offered 2591. per annum, and the Counsel for the lady, who claimed 300L, Dr. LUsi}IIrGTON proposed to toss up with his learned friend for the odd 501. (Laughlter.) The Counsel for Mlr. Pain consented to make the alimony 3001. a-year, and the principal cause stands over. A great many other caqses of minor ititerest were then talen, and the Court rose at four o'clock. CONSISTORY COURT. Trr!nAV. Jrn.v 9n