288 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1812. 



fore, in any other than the names 

 by which the parties are known, 

 has been justly considered as a 

 fraud. In the present case, the 

 question was, whether the omission 

 was sufficient to nuUify the publi- 

 cation ? The court does not wish 

 to go the length of saying, that 

 where no fraud is intended, and 

 all parties are consenting, the acci- 

 dental omission of a name would 

 render the marriage void, or that 

 when one of the parties purposely 

 \ concealed a name with a fraudulent 

 intent on the other, such person 

 could afterwards claim a remedy 

 for his own bad act ; but in a case 

 where the suppression or assump- 

 tion of a name is employed in con- 

 junction with other acts for the 

 express purpose of violating the 

 civil rights of any individual, the 

 court would feel itself called upon 

 to enforce the letter of the law in 

 support of its spirit. He then 

 ghowed that the present case was 

 evidently of that kind, being a 

 combination to defeat the rights of 

 ■ a third person, the minor's father : 

 and in consequence he pronounced 

 the marriage void. 



Consistory Court, Doctors Com- 

 mons, May. — Walker against Long- 

 staff, falsely called Walker. — This 

 was a proceeding originally brought 

 by Mr. John Walker, senior, as 

 guardian of his son Mr. John 

 Walker, junior, a minor, and after- 

 wards continued by the young gen- 

 tleman himself on ooming of age, 

 for the purpose of annulling a mar- 

 riage that had taken place by 

 licence between him and Hannah 

 Longstaff (who resided in the 

 family in the capacity of lady's 

 maid), on two grounds: 1st, The 

 minority of the husband, and non- 



consent of his father; and, 2nd!y, 

 the fraudulent procurement of the 

 licence by some other jjerson in 

 the husband's name. 



It appeared in evidence, that 

 Mr. Walker was born on the 1st 

 of August, 1788, and baptised on 

 the 31st of October following; 

 that the marriage took place in 

 April, 1808, unknown to his fa- 

 ther, and was communicated to him 

 by an anonymousletter, some time 

 in the course of the following 

 autumn ; that the father then ex- 

 pressed his surprise and displeasure 

 at the event ; and a few months 

 afterwards brought the present 

 suit. It was likewise proved by 

 Mr. Walker junior's uncle and 

 brother, that the signature to the 

 affidavit was not of his hand-writing, 

 and consequently that somebody 

 must have personated him for the 

 purpose of obtaining the licence. 

 To repel this latter charge, the 

 wife produced several of his letters, 

 the signatures to which were com- 

 pared with that to the affidavit by 

 the inspector of handwriting to 

 Powers of Attorney, &c. at the 

 bank of England, who gave in 

 evidence his opinion, that there was 

 a sufficient resemblance to induce 

 a belief that they were written by 

 the same person. It was contended 

 on the part of Mr. Walker, that 

 the minority was fullj' proved ; and 

 as the father knew nothing of the 

 marriage, he could not give the 

 necessary antecedent consentjwhat- 

 ever might have been his opinion of 

 the prudence of the act afterwards; 

 that it was not necessary to prove 

 his actual dissent, and if it was, 

 even that might be collected from 

 a plea of the wife's, which had 

 been rejected by the court, in 

 which she expressly states, that 



the 



