292 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1812. 



ried, that she was in the 20th year 

 of her age when she went away 

 with Mr. Crew, who taught music 

 at that school. Mrs. Crew gave 

 cut that she was going to Scotland 

 to be married. She was absent 

 with Mr. Crew about a fortnight, 

 and they came back as man and 

 wife, and h'ved together as such 

 thenceforward, without any sus- 

 picion that they were not married ; 

 but Mrs. Crew declared herself that 

 they had not been to Scotland. 

 During this cohabitation as man 

 and wife, the son was born, whose 

 legitimacy was the question. Mr. 

 and Mrs. Crew afterwards sepa- 

 rated, upon the infidelity of the 

 latter ; and the former then allowed 

 her an annuity, by way of sepa- 

 rate maintenance for herself and 

 children, appointing a person to 

 pay it, and requiring her always 

 personally to receive it. Mr. Ser- 

 geant Lens submitted, that as Mrs. 

 Crew was at the time of her sup- 

 posed marriage under age, and in- 

 capable of contracting matrimony 

 without consent of parents, there 

 should have been some evidence of 

 the publications of banns, or some 

 attempt to show an actual marriage, 

 in point of law. 



Lord Ellenborough said, that as 

 this was a doubtful case, and if it 

 should again go to a jury no new 

 evidence was proposed, the court 

 could not say the jury had decided 

 wrongly. The husband recognised 

 the wje 30 years, and paid her 

 an annuity when sha had left him 

 asan adultress, thus treating her 

 still as his wife, when a man would 

 be glad to repudiate such a con- 

 nection, if it could be denied. This 

 gave great countenance to the de- 

 fendant's case : and if a little scope 

 were given to the fortnight when 



the parties were absent, it might 

 be made to include three Sundays, 

 upon which banns might have been 

 published, and they might have 

 been married according to the laws 

 of England. In the absence of 

 positive evidence, it was open to 

 the jury to decide as they had de- 

 cided; and if the lessee of the 

 plaintiff were dissatisfied with the 

 verdict, he might bring a fresh 

 ejectment. 



Mr. Justice Bayley. — The 

 weight of evidence was against 

 you. — Rule refused. 



Arches' Court, Doctors Commons^ 

 December 12. — Cooke v. Browniug, 

 folsely callsdr 'Cooke, — This was a 

 proceeding at the instance of Mr. 

 James Stamp Sutton Cooke, of the 

 parish of St. Sepulchre, London, 

 for a sentence of the court, decla- 

 ratory of the invalidity of his mar- 

 riage with a Miss Jane Browning, 

 of Hastingly in Kent, on the 

 ground of his minority at the 

 time, and a want of legal consent- 

 It appeared that Mr. Cooke was 

 born in the month of April, 1780, 

 and that the marriage took place 

 by licence, in the month of Sep- 

 tember, 1799, when he was little 

 more than 19 years of age ; that 

 his father (who was then living) 

 was utterly ignorant of it, till 

 after it had taken place, and then 

 expressed his displeasure in the 

 strongest terms, consoling himself 

 at the same time with the reflec- 

 tion, that the absence of hrs con- 

 sent rendered the marriage a mere 

 nullity, and that he continued in 

 these sentiments, and the commu- 

 nication of them to his friends, to 

 the time of his death. 



These circumstances were de- 

 tailed in the evidence of several 



relatives 



