Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/784

and often declared he would make a good provision for her, in case she survived him. And finally, he insisted, that the matters sought by the bill to be relieved in, were properly cognizable in the Ecclesiastical Court.

The several other defendants also put in their answers, and all of them admitted, that the appellant and respondent lived together as man and wife.

Issue having been joined in the cause, several witnesses were examined on both sides. The respondent, on her part, produced many witnesses, persons of character and reputation, and proved every material part of her case; and even as to the actual solemnization of the marriage, it was proved by the Rev. Dean Crowe, that he had been sent for in order to marry the appellant to the [24] respondent. That the day being exceedingly wet, the then Bishop of Clonfert prevailed on the Dean not to venture his life on that day, by undertaking such a journey. That on the next day he went to Gortern, in order to marry them. That the appellant then told the Dean, that he intended he should be the person to marry him to the respondent, but as he did not come when sent for, he had that ceremony performed by another, and at the same time introduced the respondent to the Dean as his wife. This evidence was confirmed by the deposition of Samuel Simpson, esq. who, amongst other particulars, swore, that the winter before the marriage, the appellant had told him, as a secret, that he intended to marry the respondent. That some time afterwards he met the appellant, and having heard that the appellant had been privately married to the respondent, he asked the appellant, whether he might wish him joy and that the appellant told him, he might, for that he was married to the respondent; and at the same time he told the deponent, that he had a resentment against Dean Crowe for not coming to marry him when sent for, and as he did not chuse to wait, that he procured another clergyman for that purpose. The evidence on the part of the appellant went to prove several instances of the respondent's ill behaviour, that she wasted his substance, embezzled his effects, procured false keys to his locks, stole away his papers, and attempted bis life. Two papers were also proved to have been accidentally dropped by the respondent out of an handkerchief, which were certificates of her marriage in her own hand writing, with the appellant's name subscribed thereto, but which was not of his hand writing.

Publication having passed, the cause came on to be heard before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, on the 17th of November 1766, and to be further heard on the 18th, 19th, and 20th of the same month, when his Lordship was pleased to decree, that the deed of the 29th of November 1762, so far as the same might prevent the respondent's recovering a maintenance, during the separation between her and the appellant, should be set aside; and it was referred to a Master, to enquire into and report the circumstances of the estate and fortune, both of the appellant and respondent, and what would be proper to allow the respondent annually for her maintenance, during the said separation.

The respondent being in very great distress, and being likely to meet with every possible delay to retard the proceedings before the Master, on the 22d of November 1766, applied to the Court, upon an affidavit, stating her distress, for a sum of money to maintain her, and to enable her to carry on the suit; whereupon, and upon hearing counsel on behalf of the appellant, his Lordship was pleased to order the appellant to pay the respondent, in a month, the sum of £200, subject to the further order of the Court.

From this decree and order the appellant appealed, insisting (W. de Grey, A. Forrester, D. Graham), that no actual marriage was proved to have been solemnized be-[25]-tween him and the respondent, and he had positively denied it upon oath. That had there really been a marriage, the respondent might have proved it by various kinds of evidence, which she not only had not attempted, but from her own bill, and the evidence produced in support of it, it clearly appeared there never was any marriage between them. The bill charged the marriage to have been in the year 1742, but did not state the day, or the month, or the place where, or the person by whom the ceremony was performed, nor whether any one was present at it. Simpson, her own witness, contradicted her, by fixing the marriage to be in the year 1740; and both were contradicted by the articles made previous to the supposed marriage, which could not mistake, and were not made till September 1743; thereby plainly proving both the charge and the testimony to be false. Dean Crowe, another of the respon-