HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0919 and id is 1 raw text is: XI CL&RK; & ZFIN LY, 8 SUSSEX PEERAGE CASE [1844]
[An order to the following effect was afterwards entered on the Journals ;-It
began by reciting that a writ of error had been brought to reverse a judgment given
in the said Court of Common Pleas for the Defendant in Error, and also a judgment
of the Court of Exchequer Chamber affirming the said judgment of the Court of
Common Pleas, except as [84] to the sixth plea pleaded to the second count in the
declaration, which was considered by the said Court of Exchequer Chamber to be
good and sufficient in law to bar the said Defendant in Error from maintaining
his action; and it then proceeded as follows: It is ordered and adjudged, that
so much of the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas as awards £734 to the
said Sanuel Gatliff (Defendant in Error), for his costs and charges adjudged of
increase to the said Samuel Gatliff, and also the judgment of the said Court of
Exchequer Chamber in so far as it affirms the said part of the said judgment of
the Court of Common Pleas, be and the same are hereby reversed. And it is further
ordered, that the said Samuel Gatliff do recover against the said defendants (Plain-
tiffs in Error) his damages and costs by the jury aforesaid, in form aforesaid,
assessed, together with £729 for his costs and charges of increase in the said Courf of
Common Pleas, about his suit in respect of the first count of his declaration; making
the said plaintiff's costs and charges in the whole £1511. And it is further ordered
and adjudged, that so much of the said 'judgment of the Court of Exchequer
Chamber as adjudges £,311 to the said Samuel Gatliff for his damages, costs, and
charges sustained by reason of the delay in the execution of the judgment of the
Court of Oommon Pleas, be and the same is hdreby reversed. And it is further
ordered and adjudged, that in all other respects the said judgment be affirmed.-
Lords' Journals, l1th June 1844.]
[85] ThE SUSSEX PEERAGE [May 23, June 13, 25, and 28, July 9, 1844].
[Mews' Dig, v. 5; vi. 522, 536, 696, 813, 915; vii. 632; viii. 319, 320; xiii. 1883,
1888. S.C. 8, Jur., 793. Adopted (i.) as to admission of entry in Prayer Book
in In re lambert, 1886, 56 L.J. Ch., 122; (ii.) as to admission against
interest, in Smith v. Blakey, 1867, L.R. 2 Q.B., 332; (iii.) as to expert evidence,
in In re Coppin, 1866, L.R. 2 Ch. 53; and of. Beg. v. Savage, 1876, 13 Cox. C.C.,
178; In the Goods of Dost Aly Khan, 1880, 6 P.D. 6; and (iv.), as to construction of
statutes, in Cargo ex Argos, 1873, L.R., 5 P.C. 153; River Wear Commissioner-
v. Adamson, 1877, 2 A.C. 778; Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income
Tax v. Pemsel, (1891), A.C., 543.]
Royal Marriage Act-Evidence-Practice-Construction of Statutes.
The Royal Marriage Act, 12 Geo. 3, c. 11, extends to prohibit the contracting of
marriages, or to annul any already contracted, in violation of its provisions,
wherever the same may be contracted or solemnised, either within the realm
of England or without.
In a claim of Peerage, where the question was whether the deceased Peer, the.
father of the claimant, had been married or not, a Prayer-book, found after
the death of the claimant's mother among her papers, was received, and an
entry made in her handwriting, declaring the fact of the marriage, read
from it, not as conclusively proving that fact, but as a declaration of it made
by one of the parties at the time. (Infra [11 Cl. and F.], p. 98.)
A will of the deceased Peer, made many years before his death, declaring, and in
the most solemn form, his marriage, and the legitimacy of his son (the
claimant of the Peerage), was proposed to be read as a declaration made by
one of the parties; but it, vas rejected, because the date, and certain expres-
sions in it, showed it to have been written after a suit to annul a marriage
of the deceased Peer had been instituted by his father, and because there
was nothing to show that that marriage was not the very marriage in ques-
tion. (Infra 11 Cl. and F.], pp. 99 to 103.)
The declarations of a deceased clergyman to his son, to the effect that he had
1034](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0919&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)