APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



.?89 



the father had often charged her 

 with having seduced his son into 

 the marriage in question ; that her 

 defence, founded on comparison 

 of handwriting, was too fallacious 

 to repel the positive oath of two 

 persons well acquainted with Mr. 

 Walker's handwriting ; that the 

 signature to the affidavit was not 

 his ; and therefore, as the two 

 grounds upon which the suit rested 

 were both fully established, its 

 object of obtaining a nullity of the 

 marriage miist necessarily be suc- 

 cessful. 



On the part of the wife the pro- 

 ceeding was designated as a base 

 attack upon her character in the 

 question as to the forgery, arising 

 solely from a conviction of the in- 

 sufficiency of the evidence on that 

 of the minority and non-consent. 

 This insufficiency, it was contend- 

 ed, was apparent from the father's 

 not having been produced as a wit- 

 ness, as his evidence would have 

 placed the matter beyond a doubt : 

 the law, indeed, required it ; and 

 the only inference to be drawn 

 from a non-compliance with such 

 a requisition, was, that the matter 

 would not bear sifting to the bot- 

 tom. In the absence of proof of 

 non-consent which might have been 

 produced, consent must be pre- 

 sumed, and the suit accordingly be 

 dismissed. 



Sir W. Scott over-ruled the doc- 

 trine that any proof of dissent was 

 actually necessary ; it was enough 

 to show, on the part of the person 

 holding the legal right of consent, 

 an ignorance of the actual cele- 

 bration of the marriage, as from 

 that the presumption of his non- 

 acquiescence in that species of 

 antecedent consent required by the 

 statute, must necesbarily result. 



Vol. LIV. 



As this was the state of the present 

 case, the other question as to the 

 forgery, was not perhaps so mate- 

 rial, though likewise sufficiently 

 proved, and equally a ground of 

 nullity. The objection founded upon 

 the non-examination of the father 

 was sufficiently answered by the 

 fact of his being originally a party 

 in the cause, and therefore not a 

 competent witness to facts, upon 

 which he was to obtain a remedy 

 for a violation of his parental rights. 

 Under these circumstances, there- 

 fore, the proof was complete, and 

 the marriage must be accordingly 

 pronounced null and void. 



Court of Peculiars, Doctors' 

 Commons, June 2. — Westjield false- 

 ly called Mould against Mould. — 

 This was a proceeding at the in- 

 stance of Miss Mary Faussett West- 

 field, of Barbara in Kent, against 

 Mr. Joseph Mould, for the nullity 

 of a marriage that had taken place 

 between them on the grounds of 

 minority, and a want of legal 

 consent. 



It appeared that the parties first 

 becameacquainted whilstthe young 

 lady was on a visit to her sister at 

 Dover ; a correspondence ensued 

 between them, on her return home, 

 which led to a proposal of matri- 

 mony : this was discovered by her 

 mother (who was married again, 

 and with whom the young lady 

 resided) ; but as the respectabiUty 

 of Mr. Mould's situation in life 

 (he being in the army) precluded 

 any objection to the match, it was 

 finally resolved on, and the parties 

 accordingly came to town, and 

 were married at the parish church 

 of St. Martin in the Fields, by 

 virtue of a licence obtained for the 

 purpose by Mr. Mould. 



U In 



