APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



287 



tiacted from that purity and inte- 

 grity. 



The jury, however, after a short 

 consultation, found a verdict for 

 the defendant. 



MATRIMONIAL CAUSES. 



Consistory Court, Doctors Com- 

 mons. — Pouget against Tomkins, 

 January 31. —This was a proceed- 

 ing at the instance of Dr. Joseph 

 Pouget, of Blandford-street, St. 

 Mary -le- bone, in the character of 

 guardian to his son, William Peter 

 Pouget, a minor, to annul a mar- 

 riage between him and Lucretia 

 Tomkins a servant in the family. 



The grounds upon which the 

 validity of the marriage was dis- 

 puted were, the undue publication 

 of the banns, and the minority of 

 the youth, who was under 16 years 

 of age at the time, the servant 

 being upwards of 25. Evidence 

 was brought to prove that the bap- 

 tismal names of the minor were 

 William Peter, but that from birth 

 he had been called Peter only. 

 With a view, however, to con- 

 cealment, the name of William 

 had been revived, and used singly 

 for the publicatioi) of the banns, 

 which, after an ineffectual attempt 

 at Highgate, had been effected 

 through the contrivance of the 

 wife's brother-in-law at St. An- 

 drew's Holborn, where the mar- 

 riage was in consequence cele- 

 brated. 



The plaintiff's counsel contend- 

 ed that the evidence afforded suffi- 

 cient proof of fraud and clandes- 

 tinity to render the marriage void 

 under the statute 26 Geo. II. which 

 laid it down, that tiie publication 

 of banns should be in the true 



christian and surnames of the par- 

 ties, obviously meaning the names 

 by which they were generally 

 known. In the present case, in- 

 deed, the christian name used was 

 the true one, but not the whole 

 truth ; and the omission coupled 

 with the publication in a distant 

 parish was manifest proof of a 

 fraudulent intention. 



The defendant's counsel admit- 

 ted that the marriage act required 

 the true names, but not all the 

 names, and did not say that if any 

 were omitted the marriage should 

 be void, but merely that the mi- 

 nister should not be obliged to 

 publish the banns. In this case 

 the minister had published them, 

 and had subsequently solemnised 

 the marriage, after asking such 

 questions as he thought proper. 

 The act, therefore, could not now 

 be called in question, though there 

 was an irregularity in it. 



Sir William Scott, after recapi- 

 tulating the evidence, observed 

 that it was a case of fraud, ia 

 which the wife and her brother-in- 

 law were the principal agents. The 

 minor himself, it appeared, gave 

 the instructions for the banns, but 

 that was not material, since the 

 fraud was not upon him, but upon 

 the natural rights possessed by 

 every parent. The statute was in- 

 tended to prevent clandestine and 

 fraudulent marriages, and for that 

 purpose required the true names of 

 the parties. It does not, indeed, 

 define what true names are, be- 

 cause that is comprehended in the 

 proclamation of banns itself, which 

 implies a public notification of an 

 act about to take place, in order 

 that, if an impediment should 

 exist, the circumstance may be 

 ascertained. A publication, there- 

 fore, 



