990 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1812. 



In support of the suit, the mo- 

 ther of the minor, and several other 

 witnesses, were examined, to prove 

 the birth of the minor, on the 

 20th of July J 789; and her mar- 

 riage, on the 9th of July, 1808, at 

 which time she was not quite 19 

 years of age ; the death of her 

 father intestate ; the re-marriage 

 of her mother; and the non-ap- 

 pointment of any guardian by the 

 Court of Chancery : and Sir John 

 Nichoil observed, that these cir- 

 cumstances were so fully proved, 

 and were so conclusive in them- 

 selves, that it would be quite use- 

 less to trouble counsel for any 

 argument upon them. It clearly 

 appeared, that this was a marriage 

 contracted by the parties, under 

 such circumstances, as must, in 

 the present state of the law, render 

 it void; and, however unwilling 

 the court might feel, upon consi- 

 derations of equity, to dissolve a 

 contract of so important a nature, 

 and which seemed to have been 

 entered into with the concurrent 

 consent of every one who might 

 naturally be expected to have the 

 right of consenting ; yet as that 

 was not a consent recognized by 

 law, the court had no other alter- 

 native : there was nothing in the 

 case from which the court could 

 judge of the motives that dictated 

 the present application to it, or 

 whether there were any children 

 to be injured by its decree. The 

 suit was brought by the wife against 

 the husband; and if he should sus- 

 tain any injury from the result, he 

 must attribute it to his own con- 

 duct, in asserting her majority 

 upon oath, to obtain the licence for 

 the marriage. The court pro- 

 nounced, therefore, for the nullity 

 of the marriage. 



Court of Chancer^/, July 21.— 

 Priestleij v, Hughes.-- Awery impor- 

 tant question on the construction of 

 the marriage act has come before 

 the Chancellor, by an appeal from 

 the Rolls. Mr. Hughes, father of 

 the defendant, married a Miss Ro- 

 berts an illegitimate child, by 

 licence, with the consent of the 

 mother, the father being dead ; and 

 the defendant, a young lady about 

 eighteen years of age, is the only 

 issue of the marriage. The ques- 

 tion is, whether the consent of the 

 father or mother of an illegitimate 

 minor, is sufficient to legalize a 

 marriage of the minor under the 

 marriage act. If the question is 

 decided in the affirmative, the de- 

 fendant will be entitled, by descent, 

 to a fortune of 100,000/. ; if in 

 the negative, she will have nothing. 

 The case was sent by the Master of 

 the Rolls to the King's Bench. 

 Three of the judges, Ellenborough, 

 Le Blanc, and Bailey, certified that 

 the marriage was not valid : Mr. 

 Justice Grese, that it was valid; 

 the case of illegitimate minors 

 being casus omissus in that part of 

 the act that relates to marriage by 

 licence. 



The Master of the Rolls con- 

 curred in opinion with the majority 

 of the judges of the Court of King's 

 Bench, and decided against the 

 validity of the marriage. From 

 this decision there is an appeal to 

 the Chancellor, who promised soon 

 to give his opinion ; but expressed 

 his hope that the subject would be 

 carried to the House of Lords, as a 

 question of this importance could 

 not be too carefully examined. The 

 matter rests here at present ; but 

 it was generally understood that 

 there would be an appeal to the 

 Lords. 



Consistorial 



