230 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1816. 
Act, 26th Geo, the Second, which 
directs “‘that all bans of ma- 
trimony shall be published in the 
parish church, or in some public 
chapel (in which bans have been 
usually published), belonging to 
the parish or chapelry wherein 
the parties dwell; if they reside 
in different parishes or chapelries, 
the bans to be published in each ; 
and if either of them reside in any 
extra parochial place (having no 
church or chapel in which baos 
have been usually published), 
then the bans to be published in 
the church or chapel of some ad- 
joining parish or chapelry, in 
which case the minister shall cer- 
tify the publication in the same 
manner as if either of the parties 
lived in such adjoining parish, 
and all other the rules of publica- 
tion prescribed by the Rubrick, 
not altered, shall be duly ob- 
served, and the marriage solem- 
nized in one of the churches or 
chapels where the bans have 
been published, and in no other 
place whatsoever.” It then plead- 
ed, that in May, June, and 
July, 1792, the parties in this 
case, intending to be married, and 
being respectively parishioners 
of St. Mary, Newington, Surrey, 
gave notice in writing to the minis- 
ter of that parish, of their names, 
address, &c. in order to have the 
bans published. From the 17th 
of June, 1792, the church of St. 
Mary, Newington, was shut up, 
and under repair in order to be in 
a great part rebuilt and enlarged, 
and was presently afterwards un- 
roofed, and in great part pulled 
down, so that from that time un- 
til the Gt of February 1794, no 
divine service was performed in 
it. The entry for the publication 
of bans was, however, made in 
the bans book of St. Mary, 
Newington, which was taken to 
the adjoining church of Saint 
George, Southwark, and the bans 
there published on Sundays, the 
29th of July, antl the 5th and 
12th of August, 1792, the curate 
making a memorandum in the 
margin to this effect: ‘* publish- 
ed at Saint George’s, Southwark, 
Newington church being under 
repair.”? The marriage was so- 
lemnized on the 13th of August 
following, on the site or ruins 
of Newington church; and the 
question was, whether it was void 
under the clause of the act cited, 
as having been solemnized in a 
different parish to that in which 
the bans were published. 
It was contended, in opposition 
to the admissibility of the libel, 
that this was not a case in the 
contemplation of the legislature, 
or within the mischief intended to 
be remedied by the act, the object 
of which was, “ for the better pre- 
venting clandestine marriages.’’ 
There were no words in the act 
imperative upon this point, or any 
enactment declaring in express 
terms such a marriage null and 
void. It would have been a good 
marriage before the act, and was 
so still, if not rendered null by it. 
It might be a marriage in which 
the persons celebrating it might 
be liable to punishment ; it might 
be contrary to thedirections of the 
statute, but it did not follow that 
the act itself would be null and 
void. There must be some words 
in the statute specifically declar- 
ing such a marriage null and void ; 
but there were none such appli- 
cable to the present case ; and 
what rendered them indispens- 
