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/ssactsengr0968 and id is 1 raw text is: II H.L.C., 73 WORTHAM'S CASE-BAILLIE V. EDWARDS [1848]
tions that have been reported to us in Sir F. Kelly's speech-namely, that of a. case
of overpowering strength. On the contrary, I am of opinion that the facts, as they
appeared before us, relative to the conduct of Miss Field immediately preceding
the marriage and during the day of the marriage, were not such as would justify us
in holding that that which appears to be a consent was so, far influenced by fear or
the continuance of any persecution, as to justify the Legislature in interfering, by
an act of rather a peculiar nature, to render void the contract which has been
solemnized in the face of the church and is binding in law. Of course, my individual
opinion would not signify much, except so [73] far as it would influence my own
conduct, with reference to the further proceeding with the bill. I thought it my
duty to consult with every one of the noble Lords who have attended to this case,
and whose opinion is of quite as much weight as any of the law Lords. I have
consulted Loid Denman; I have consulted Lord Lyndhurst, and I know my Lord
Chancellor's opinion from what he has said of the case, though he has not attended
to it so fully as the others. My Lord Lyndhurst has read everything that was put
in evidence before your Lordships, and he has a strong opinion in accordance with
mine.
Under these circumstances it does appear to me to be unnecessary to call upon
the counsel in opposition to the bill to address any observations to the House; because,
assuming the case to stand as it now stands, as it is represented by the promoters of
'the bill, I, for one, am not prepared to move the second reading of the bill, and
none of the noble Lords who have heard the case is prepared to do so. I do not,
under these circumstances, conceive that the promoters of the bill would wish that the
time of the House should be wasted by further proceeding with it.
The bill was dropped.
WORTHAM'S CASE.
[Mews' Dig. vii. 628.]
A case-similar to the above in many of its circumstances-was brought before
the House in 1846, upon petitions for leave to bring in A Bill to .dissolve, rescind,
and make void the marriage of William Newnham Burton and Frances Louisa
Wortham. She was entitled to real estate of £450 a-year, and was only fourteen
years of age when taken away from her mother, a widow, by W1 N. Burton, and
married to him at Gretna Green. There was cohabitation, and birth of a child. On
Lord Brougham's motion, the petitions of the mother and daughter, together with the
evidence on the trial of Burton for the abduction, were printed; but no further
proceeding was taken. (See 76 Lords' Jour. (for 1846), pp. 76, 96, and 303.)
[74] ALEXANDER BAILLIE,-Appellant; EDWARD EDWARDS and Another,-
Respondents [August 1 and 4, 1848].
[Mews' Dig. xii. 684. S.C. 14 L.J. Ch. 341.]
Principal and Agent, Consignee and, Trustee-Accounts-Set-off.
Innes, consignee of a West India estate, was appointed trustee thereof by B., the
tenant for life, for the purpose, of keeping down incumbrances. Innes was
also private agent and banker for B., with .the understanding that B. was
not, nor were his funds, to be liable for advances made by Innes for the estate;
Innes, becoming embarrassed, was declared bankrupt, and assignees were
appointed:
Held, by the Lords,-reversing orders of the Court of Chancery, on a bill filed by
B. and the other owners of the estate, to remove Innes from the possession and
management,-that a sum found due fr9m Innes to B., on their private
dealings, might be set off against a sum found due to Innes in respect of his
advances and payments for the estate.
The appellant was, under his father's will, dated in 1793, tenant for life of the
1020](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0968&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)