1. Divorce-Protest, as to the validity of
the appointment of the guardian of the
wife, ad litem-and as to the effect of a
citation, describing the party in a wrong
parish, but cured by appearance, over-
309
ruled. Barham v. Barham.

2. Restitution of conjugal rights. Counter-
allegation,-of cruelty in menacing and
insulting treatment, and prayer for di-
vorce thereon, not sustained on the facts.
Restitution decreed. Oliver v. Oliver.
429

3. Divorce, by reason of cruelty of the
husband, sustained on the facts. Holden
452
v. Holden.
4. Divorce by reason of cruelty, on words
of menace accompanied by violence, &c.
Harris v. Harris.

523

523
5. Suit of divorce brought by the wife, for
cruelty-Justification, from the conduct
of the wife, sustained. Waring v. War-
ing.
6. Committee of a lunatic competent to in-
stitute a suit of divorce, by reason of the
adultery of the wife, on behalf of the lu-
natic. Parnell v. Parnell.

524
7. Divorce by reason of adultery; Proof,-
confession of the particeps criminis, as
connected with the act of the wife, ad-
mitted, Burgess v. Burgess.

527

EXCEPTIVE ALLEGATION.

1. Exceptive allegations, after publication,
are stricti juris; and their object being
the credit of the witness,-not the proof
of the matters in issue in the principal
cause;-1st, Facts which might have
been pleaded in contradiction to the
pleas before publication, cannot be
pleaded in contradiction to a witness:
2dly, There must be a contradiction to
the depositions clear and capable of
proof, and showing that the witness has
deposed falsely and corruptly: 3rdly,
The matter must arise out of the evi-
dence (not out of the general character)
of the witness.-Allegation rejected.
Burgoyne v. Free.

192
2. The Court will not admit an exceptive
plea that an indictment of witnesses, for
perjury in their depositions in the cause
pending, has been preferred and a true
bill found, nor delay the hearing till the
indictment is tried. Maclean v. Maclean.
219

F.

FACULTY.

179

1. A faculty (for annexing a pew to a
messuage) obtained by surprise and un-
due contrivance, may be revoked. Butt
v. Jones.
2. Faculty for erecting a gallery, for the
accommodation of the increased popula-
tion of the parish, granted.-Objections
on the part of certain parishioners over-
ruled. Groves v. The Rector, &c. of
366
Hornsey.
3. Faculty for accepting and erecting an
Organ, offered to Parish Church of St.
John's, Margate,-granted, without
clause against future expenses being
charged to the Parish. Objection, on
the part of certain Parishoners, over-
ruled. The Churchwardens of St. John's,
Margate, v. The Parishioners, Vicar, and
366
Inhabitants of the Same.
4. Proceedings promoted by the Rector of

strangers in blood; such disposition (ex-
cept the provision for the husband) be-
ing similar to a will in 1816;-made a
will on the 9th of March, 1827, and a co-
dicil thereto on the 21st of April (she
dying on the 8th of May) 1827, which
papers, except legacies to three servants
and rings to three friends, left all her
property to her husband, and appointed
executors, him and a total stranger: the
Court, holding that the latter papers
were obtained by the husband's undue
influence, when her faculties were much
impaired, pronounced for the will and
codicil of 1818, and condemned the hus-
band (who though he denied the validi-
ty of the powers and nominally prayed
an intestacy, was the real party setting
up the latter papers) in the costs of the
executors of the will of 1818. Marsh v.
33
Tyrrell and Harding.

rio.

3. Validity of Jewish marriage, tried by
evidence of the laws of the Jews, as in
cases of Foreign Marriage.-The assert-
ed marriage held invalid. Lindov. Belisa-
367
4. In nullity, by reason of minority, and
want of consent of the parent,-what con-
sent required. Consent, once given,
how to be retracted. Hodgkinson, false-
ly called Wilkie v. Wilkie.
401
5. Jewish marriage invalid under that law,
by reason of the incompetency of wit-
nesses, required as an essential part of
the ceremony. Goldsmid, by her Guar
dian, v. Bromer.

422

proceedings on the part of the father
not admitted; the son being of age at
the time of marriage. Turner v. Meyers.
440

9. Suit of nullity of marriage, by licence, by
reason of the false description of names,
not sustained. Cope v. Burt. 445
10. Marriage,-by contract without reli-
gious celebration, according to the law
of Scotland, held to be valid: Distinc-
tion, as to the state of one of the parties,
being an English officer on service in
that country, not sustained. Dalrymple
v. Dalrymple.
485

11. Nullity of marriage, by reason of false
and imperfect publication of banns,
omission of one Christian name, which
had been the name most commonly
used-fatal. Pouget v. Tomkins. 523
12. Nullity of marriage by licence, by rea-
son of minority and want of consent [of
the parent,] sustained. Jarvis v. Jarvis.
524

13. Nullity of marriage, by reason of fraud
and alteration of licence, not sustained.
Wheatley v. Wheatley.
524

14. Suit of nullity of marriage, by reason
of a former marriage, sustained. Strict
proof required of the identity of the par-
ties. Searle v. Price.
524
15. Nullity, by reason of the want of due
consent: the mother, who had given
consent, being alleged to be the natural
mother. Evidence on that point, how
considered, not sufficient; party dis-
missed. Fielder v. Smith.

527
16. Nullity of marriage, by banns, by rea-
son of minority and want of consent of
the father. On the suit of the father,
sustained. Meddowcroft v. Gregory.

527

17. Nullity of marriage, by a publication
of banns in a false name, sustained.-Na-
ture of proof required as to identity.
Wyatt, falsely called Henry v. Henry.

527
18. Nullity of marriage, by reason of pub-
lication of banns in false names, not sup-
ported in fact. Sullivan v. Sullivan.

534
19. Validity of a marriage, celebrated at
Palermo according to the law of Sicily,
established. Lady Herbert v. Lord Her-
bert.
534
20. Jactitation of marriage.-Factum of
marriage pleaded, but not sustained in
proof.-Effect of imposition of such ce-
lebration, if actually practised, quære.
The Court ultimately declined to pro-
nounce for jactitation: it appearing to
have been done, originally, with the
permission of the party. Lord Hawke
v. Corri.
543
21. Citation, in a suit of nullity of mar-
riage, by reason of incurable impotence;
not sustained: The complainant having
confessed the validity of the marriage in

former proceedings for divorce, by rea-
son of adultery, against him. Guest v.
Shipley.

548

550

22. Nullity of marriage by reason of in-
curable impotence alleged against the
wife, not sustained. The charge allow-
ed to be repelled under the circum-
stances of age, &c. and by a denial, in
the form of protestation, by affidavits.
Briggs v. Morgan.
23. Nullity of marriage alleged on the lex
loci of France, on a marriage between
English subjects, celebrated by the
chaplain of the British forces, then in
the occupation of the country. Libel
admitted: Principal question reserved.
Burn v. Farrar.
550
24. Nullity of marriage, alleged on the lex
loci of Holland, as not conformable there-
to, with reference to a marriage celebrat-
ed between British subjects at the Cape,
by the chaplain of the British forces,
then occupying that settlement under
capitulation. Libel not admitted.
ding v. Smith.

Ru-

551

25. Validity of marriage of British subjects
contracted abroad, how far considered,
by the law of England, to depend upon
the law of the country where it is cele-
brated.-Marriage held to be null and
void in this case. Scrimshire v. Scrim-

562

--sus-

shire.
26. Nullity of marriage, by reason of forci-
ble or fraudulent abduction of a ward of
very tender age by her guardian: 2dly,
of invalidity of the ceremony perform-
ed, not according to the lex loci,--
tained ultimately on appeal on the facts
applying to the first point: The Libel
having been rejected in the Court of
Arches. Harford v. Morris.
575
27. Marriage of English subjects celebrat-
ed abroad, not according to the lex loci,
-held invalid. Middleton v. Janverin.

N.

NOVITER PERVENTA.

582

In a suit for separation by reason of the
wife's adultery, (publication having
passed,) the Court-on an affidavit that
material facts are newly discovered,
may, in its discretion, allow the cause to
be opened for the purpose of pleading
further adultery.

Material facts, newly come to the
knowledge of the party, may be plead-
ed after publication.

Before a party can plead after publi-
cation, he must show (generally by affi-
davit) that the facts came to his know-
ledge since his former plea: the Court
then ought to admit a plea of such facts.
Middleton v.
Middleton.

299

0.

OFFERTORY MONEY.

597

3. After publication, the evidence of an at-
testing witness may be excepted to by
the party who produces him. Mynn v.
Robinson.
72
4. A citation, issuing as "in a suit of nulli-
ty of marriage by reason of a former mar-
riage," will not found a sentence of se-
paration "by reason of an undue publi-
cation of banns," the woman being
therein described as spinster, the first
husband having died subsequent to the
publication of the banns but prior to the
marriage. Wright v. Ellwood, calling
herself Wright.
216

5. The Court will not depart from its regu-
lar practice, by directing a list of wit-
nesses to be delivered, some time ante-
rior to their production, to the other
party residing voluntarily in France.
Morse v. Morse.
220

6. The appellants (interveners in the court
below) being described in the commis-
sion of Delegates as "the Parochial
Schoolmasters of Scotland," quære whe-
ther, notwithstanding the absolute ap-
pearance of respondents, the inhibition
ought not to be relaxed, on the ground
that the appellants, not being a body
corporate, had no persona standi in their
collective capacity. The Parochial
Schoolmasters of Scotland v. Fraser. 222
7. The renouncing all further allegations,
unless exceptive, is the virtual con-
clusion of the principal cause as to
the rights of parties: leave for further
pleading is in the discretion of the
Court. Middleton v. Middleton. 299
8. Misnomer--how considered.--Aver-
ment of the party, as to his true name,
required, and binding on him. Pritchard
v. Dalby.

PRESUMPTION.

365

Every person is presumed sane till shown
to have become insane; the presumption
then changes, and a party setting up an
instrument executed after the existence
of insanity, has the burthen of proof cast
on him, and must show the mind per-
fectly restored, and delusion removed.
Groom v. Thomas.
131

PROBATE.

1. Ink alterations in a will being carefully
made and not improbably final, the Court
will not, on the non-appearance, after
personal service, of executors appoint-
ed-and of minor legatees materially be.
nefitted thereby,-grant probate, in
common form, of the papers as original-
ly executed. Ravenscroft v. Hunter. 24
2. Alterations in ink, (in the margin and

body of a duplicate will) carefully made
and conformable to long entertained and
lately expressed intentions, held to con-
tain the testator's final intentions and
entitled to probate. Ibid.
25

3. Of wills of the same date, that, in the
testatrix's possession and to which she
last added codicils, is entitled to pro-
bate, together with the codicils found
therewith, and unrevoked codicils found
with the other will. Grosley, re.
32
4. Probate cannot be granted of a paper
having nothing to give it a testamentary
character; and not intended to operate
upon the death of the writer; but to ef-
fect a gift inter vivos. Glynn v. Oglander.

PROOF.

428

1. When no indecent familiarity, proxi-
mate act, or personal freedom (except
two kisses), and no circumstances infer-
ring adultery, are proved; letters from
the alleged paramour, found in the wife's
possession, but not necessarily implying
the commission of adultery, will not
support a sentence of separation by rea-
son of her adultery: but if the evidence
raises a suspicion that an adulterous in-
tercourse is carrying on between the
parties accused, the Court may, upon
affidavits, rescind the conclusion, and
allow the husband to give in an allega-
13
tion. Hamerton v. Hamerton.
2. Where the execution of a codicil was
clandestinely, and without previous in-
structions, obtained-from a testator of
eighty-only one month before death,
by the son-the person solely benefitted
-and his associates, the disposition be-
ing contrary to the repeated former acts
of the deceased, the clearest proof of
capacity and free agency is necessary.
Codicil pronounced against, and the son
condemned in costs. Mackenzie v. Han-
dasyde.

92