« AnteriorContinuar »
bound to adopt such construc- to his views, or modified at the tions as the rules of law prescrib- discretion of the court. In the ed; but the same words would present case, there was no doubt receive a different construction that the objects were legitimate, in the case of charities, from that but they were not definite. There which the law adopted in cases of were two sources of uncertainty individuals. A case more strongly and difficulty. In the first place, in point than that of Siderfin's the sunis or' divisions of the procould not be cited. His Lordship perty, allotted to the different had formerly seen almost all the purposes, mentioned by the testaprivate papers in that cause, and tor, were not fixed; and, in the though the testator's gift was not second place, all the objects for complete, as the note by which which it was destined, were not he intended to specify the objects specified. Neither of those cirof his bounty was not found, yet cumstances, however, could affect the court disposed of his property the decision of the court, in any to a charity, and excluded the question regarding the rights of the next of kin. The present case testator's next of kin. The will resolved itself into this : Did the here was pointed and definite. It detestator, looking at this clause in signated two objects for the behoof his will, intend to say, I mean of which the property of the tes. to give to these two charities, and tator was destined, the propasuch other charities as I shall gation of the Gospel in foreign name;" thereby declaring that parts, and the instruction of mishe gave to charities : or did the sionaries. The third was not clause mean this, “ Unless I specified, because the testator had name other charities, I mean not not, at the time he made it, deto give to charities at all?" termined what it should particu
His Lordship had now only to larly be ; but he had left no unsay, that with a mind formed to certainty with regard to its nasift and doubt, more than was ture ; namely, that it should be consistent with his own comfort, a charity. This third division of he would pay as much attention the property therefore was left as to the case as the human mind little at the disposal of the next could devote to any subject; he of kin, as if it had been actually had a severe and arduous duty to destined for the propagation of perform, and should always feel the Gospel, or any other definite the utmost pain in differing from end. His Lordship therefore gave persons on whose authority he it as his judgment, that the third placed a much greater value than proportion of the legacy should on his own.
neither be absorbed by the two The Lord Chancellor afterwards specific distinctions mentioned in gave judgment at great length, the will, nor revert to the natural and with a full explanation of heirs of the testator, but be dethe law upon the subject. His voted to such charitable purposes Lordship stated the cases, in as should be thought proper by which the property of a testator, the court; and that the master left for general purposes, might should point out such as might be carried into effect, according be beneficial.
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES. the family of the Earl of Moray. Fellowes, falsely called Stuart, By these means he succeeded in v. Stewart, otherwise Stuart.-This gaining Miss Fellowes's affections; was a proceeding at the instance but her mother positively refused of Miss Jane Fellowes, of St. her consent, from a dislike she Clement's Danes, describing her- had taken to Captain Stewart, self as falsely called Stuart, and which was so strong, that she dewife of William Dundas Stuart, clared she would not have him against Capt. Wm. Stewart, of herself if he was to offer, even Dorer, Kent, otherwise William though he should succeed to the Dundas Stuart, for nullity of a title and estates of which he marriage that had been had in boasted. The parties availed themeffect between them, on the selves, however, of a temporary ground of an undue publication absence of Miss Fellowes from of bans.
home to effect their purpose, The defendant was the son of a and a marriage accordingly took gentleman's servantin Edinburgh, place between them the but who afterwards became a re- 30th of October, 1811, at Saint tail dealer there in spirits and to- Margaret's Westminster, in his bacco. He was born on the 15th assuined name of “ William Dunof September, 1783, and baptized das Stuart,” she being then but soon afterwards in Tron Kirk pa- 18 years of age, and he 28. The rish, Edinburgh, by the name of marriage took place in pursuance Wm. Stewart only. He was edu- of a publication of bans, effected eated at Heriot's Hospital, and at through the medium of Miss a suitable age apprenticed out by Elizabeth Myne Jones, a friend that institution, but disliking his of Miss Fellowes's. He gave her situation, left it for the army, and his name for this purpose, in the rose to his present rank of Cap- course of a morning's walk with tain. In the autumn of 1811, be- her and Miss Fellowes, as “ Wiling resident in Eaton-street, Pim- liam Douglas Dundas Stewart;" lico, he renewed an acquaintance and she, on her return home, he had formerly had with a Mrs. committed them to paper, and the Corbet of the Strand, a country- publication accordingly took place woman of his, by whom he was the first Sunday in those names. introduced to Miss Fellowes, who He afterwards, however, for some then resided in Nelson-square, reason, thought proper to call on Blackfriars-road. To this lady he the church officer, and representrepresented himself as the son of a ing this as an error, persuaded him gentleman of large landed pro- to omit the name of “ Douglas," perty in the county of Perth, and and the band were, in consequence presumptive heir to the title and published the two following times estates of the Right Hon, the Earl with his names as William Dunof Moray, in Scotland, and Baron das Stuart," instead. The mother Stuart, of Castle Stuart, in Eng. did not think proper to institute land. He also described himself by any proceedings to call the valithe names of “ Wm. Dundas dity of the marriage in question Stuart," and assumed the arms of during her daughter's minority;
but upon the minority ceasing, real rank in life was fully equal the daughter herself did so
to the expectations which Miss It was contended on her part, Fellowes was justified in forming; that, though the stat. 26 Geo. II. that she appeared herself very commonly called the marriage act, anxious for the alliance, and did not expressly enact that all therefore the Court could not marriages solemnized by publica- now, in a suit brought by her, tion of bans, not in the true names consider these circumstances as of the parties, should be void, yet forming a sufficient case of fraud several cases had occurred in which to justify it in straining the letthe Court; in construing the two ter of the law upon so slight a clauses, that the minister should variation from the real name as not be obliged to publish the bans that in which the bans had here unless the “ true" names of the been published. parties were delivered to him, and Sir John Nicholl observed, that that all marriages solemnized the ground of nullity in this case without publication of bans or was, that the publication of bans licence from a proper authority and the marriage had both taken should bevoid, had held that by the place in false names. The party "true" names of the parties was bringing the suit was a mimeant the names by which they nor, her father dead, and her are commonly known to the mother withholding her consent. world, in order that all persons This latter fact, however, was not interested might have notice of a ground of nullity in itself, if the what was about to take place; and, publication had been in the true therefore, that a publication in any names; but it was material in a other names, which should prevent case of this description, as tendparties from having that know. ing to shew a fraud against the ledge, was not a publication with- spirit of the act. By the act, and in the meaning of the act; and the decisions which had since tathe Court was, in consequence, ken place under it, it was estabound to enforce the letter of the blished that the publication must law in support of its spirit, it be- be in the true names of the paring described “an Act for the ties, which were the names by better preventing Clandestine which they are most usually Marriages ;” and declare any known, and upon the ground marriage had in virtue of such a that all parties whose rights are publication null and void : and affected by what is to take place the circumstances of this case be- may have due notice. The parties ing, as it was contended, such as themselves too have an interest to bring it within the range of in such a publication, as there this doctrine, it was submitted, might be concealed up to that that the marriage in question must time, circumstances wbich it was be declared void.
of importance that they should It was contended on the other know, and which might have a hand, that setting aside Captain considerable influence on their Stewart's false representations of determination relative to the marhimself and circumstances, his riage iself, What were the true
names had in some cases been Stewart” the liquor retailer's son made a matter of difficulty. It of Edinburgh, would, on hearing had been suggested whether or not the publication in the names names acquired by general use of " William Douglas Dundas and reputation could supersede Stewart” suppose it to be the the original ones, but this the same person? It was not necesCourt was not called upon to de- sary to shew actual fraud; it was eide in the present case. It might enough if leading to a possibility also happen that the publication of fraud ; non constat that she might take place incorrectly, might not have been prevented either through the inadvertency even by the introduction of the of those who give them in, or those name of “ Douglas” from makwho receive them for that pur- ing inquiries into the truth of pose, but this case was also ex- those representations by which empt from that consideration. The she had been so much deluded, names were evidently assumed for and the discovery of the falthe fraudulent purpose of making sity of which might have altered it appear that the party was related her intentions as to the marriage. to a noble family in the manner Upon the whole of the case, therehe stated. He then recapitulated fore, he was of opinion that the leading circumstances of the this was not a publication withcase, and observed, that there was in the meaning of the act, and not the least reason to suppose that the assumption of name was any such relationship existed as for the fraudulent purpose of pretended. Miss Fellowes cer- inveigling this young lady into a tainly appeared rather captivated marriage effected wholly by fraud. with the prospect of a coronet, and The marriage was therefore proher friend Miss Jones assisted in nounced null and void, with costs obtaining the publication of bans. against the defendant. Whether the publication being in the right names on one of the Stallwood v. Tredger, falsely Sundays, and in the wrong ones called Stallwood. -- This was on the others, would be a ground question as to the admissibility of nullity the Court was not called of a libel in a cause of nullity of upon to determine. It would cer- marriage, by reason of the undue tainly regard a suit on such a publication of bans, instituted by ground with great prejudice, but Mr. James Stallwood, of Hamin this case none of the publica- mersmith, Middlesex, against tions had been in the true names. Maria his wife, describing her What, then, could have been the as falsely so called, and by her motive for giving the name of maiden name of Tredger only. “Douglas” before Miss Fellowes, The suit was instituted by and afterwards withdrawing it? letters of request from the ComDoubtless for the purpose of con- missary Court of Surrey, the firming by so many Scotch names, party proceeded against residing the impression that he was re- at Lambeth, within its jurisdiclated to the noble family of Moray, tion, and the libel now offered as who that knew “ William pleaded the clause in the Marriage
Act, 26th Geo. the Second, which of bans was, however, made in directs " that all bans of ma- the hans book of St. Mary, trimony shall be published in the Newington, which was taken to parish church, or in some public the adjoining church of Saint chapel (in which bans have been George, Southwark, and the bans usually published), belonging to there published on Sundays, the the parish or chapelry wherein 29th of July, and the 5th and the parties dwell; if they reside 12th of August, 1792, the curate in different parishes or chapelries, making a memorandum in the the hans to be published in each; margin to this effect : “ publishund if either of them reside in any ed at Saint George's, Southwark, extra parochial place (having no Newington church being under chwch or chapel in which bans repair.” The marriage was sohave been usually published), lemnized on the 13th of August then the bans to be published in following, on the site or ruins the church or chapel of some ad- of Newington church; and the joining parish or chapelry, in question was, whether it was void which case the minister shall cer- under the clause of the act cited, tify the publication in the same as having been solemnized in a manner as if either of the parties different parish to that in which lived in such adjoining parish, the bans were published. and all other the rules of publica- It was contended, in opposition tion prescribed by the Rubrick, to the admissibility of the libel, not altered, shall be duly ob- that this was not a case in the served, and the marriage solem- contemplation of the legislature, nized in one of the churches or or within the mischief intended to chapels where the bans have be remedied by the act, the object been published, and in no other of which was, “ for the better preplace whatsoever.” It then plead- venting clandestine marriages." ed, that in May, June, and There were no words in the act July, 1792, the parties in this imperative upon this point, or any case, intending to be married, and enactment declaring in express being respectively parishioners terms such a marriage null and of St. Mary, Newington, Surrey, void. It would have been a good gave notice in writing to the mini- marriage before the act, and was ster of that parish, of their names, so still, if not rendered null by it. address, &c. in order to have the It might be a marriage in which Lans published. From the 17th the persons celebrating it might of June, 1792, the church of St. be liable to punishment; it might Mary, Newington, was shut up, be contrary to the directions of the and under repair in order to be in statute, but it did not follow that a great part rebuilt and enlarged, the act itself would be null and and was presently afterward un- void. There must be some words roofed, and in great part pulled in the statute specifically declardown, so that from that time un- ing such a marriage null and void; til the 9th of February 1794, no but there were none such applidivine service was performed in cable to the present case; and it. The entry for the publication what rendered them indispens