prisoner used to come to the shop and remove the printed copies from time to time. Three plates were used because one was worn out; but only two plates were necessary to complete the impression. After the plates were struck off, a line of letter-press was inserted in red ink. This was also executed by the witness, he being a letter-press as well as a copper-plate printer. About 7000 or 8000 copies were struck off before one of the plates was worn out. The witness told the prisoner that he could not afford to provide a new plate for the money which he was to receive for the work. The prisoner then said, he would give him two guineas if he would get a new plate. The plates were left with the witness. The line of letter-press which was introduced, was also in the original copy furnished by the prisoner. About August the pri

soner told the witness that he had got a fresh order for 5000. The prisoner himself brought the paper cut ready for receiving the impression. About 2000 of the latter order had been done when Foy came to the shop. At that time the impressions were lying about the shop. The prisoner called at least thirty times during the execution of the two orders, and appeared very anxious to get the impressions. (The witness identified the plates and impressions from them, and also the original from which the plates were made.)

A number of other witnesses were called.

Mr Platt, counsel for the defendant, rested chiefly on an error in the indictment.

The Jury with very little hesitation found the defendant Guilty.

RESPECTING THE LEGALITY OF THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE MARQUIS AND MARCHIONESS OF DONEGAL.

Consistory Court, July 28.

DR SWABEY.-In this case a citation had issued under the seal of the Court, against Charlotte Anna May, falsely calling herself the most noble the Marchioness of Donegal, citing her to appear and answer to the most noble George Augustus, Marquis of Donegal, in a suit of nullity of marriage by reason of minority. A decree, also, to see proceedings, had issued against Arthur Chichester, Esq., and George Hamilton Chichester, Esq., as the sons

and next of kin ; and a similar decree was served upon Arthur Chichester, Esq., M. P., and the Rev. Edward Chichester, Clerk, as the nephews and two next in succession to the estate and dignities of the Marquisate of Donegal. These two latter gentlemen had appeared and affirmed their protest: they had been made parties in the cause, and protested against such liability. The learned counsel, after stating the history of the proceedings which have been had in this singular cause, said that, upon the part of his client, Mr Arthur Chichester, M. P., who was called upon by the process of the Court to see proceedings in this case, he was to allege, that Mr Chichester being interested in the entail of

the Marquis of Donegal's estate, in the event of the Marquis's death without lawful issue, found himself under an obligation to appear on every general session, and on the by-day of every term-de die in diem-during the dependence of this suit. To that process he had already appeared under protest, and it was for him (Dr Swabey) to submit to the Court the difficulty under which he laboured now to proceed under the terms of the decree.

Lord Stowell desired to know what was the objection of the learned counsel?

Dr Swabey stated, that unfortunately the term had now elapsed, whereas this being a proceeding in pœnam, could only be heard, according to the ancient and invariable practice of the Court, either upon the regular days of session during the term, or upon the by-day after the term.

Dr Lushington, on the same side, informed the Court, that a minor had been cited who had not yet appeared to the citation.

Dr Phillimore had understood that it was agreed on all hands, the last time that this case was before the Court, that the argument was to be entered upon this day.

Dr Adams, who appeared on behalf of the Marquis of Donegal, also understood the arrangement in this way. In the course of the argument which he should have to offer, he should only address himself to disprove the charge of collusion between these two noble parties, which he hoped satisfactorily to do. That charge appeared to rest upon the fact of the Marchioness of Donegal's having taken out a decree to see proceedings. Counsel being agreed to take the case, the pleas and acts of Court were read. The Proctor for A. Chichester, Esq. M. P., set forth that his party was unduly cited in this case; that on the 8th of August, 1795, the marriage of the two real and only par

ties in the cause took place by virtue of a licence, in which it was stated that Charlotte Anna May was a minor, about 18 years of age; that such marriage was about to be had by and with the consent of Sir Edward May, Bart. (then E. May, Esq.) the consent of whom was so given as her reputed father; and that in the month of June 1819, the invalidity of such marriage being matter of general notoriety and publicly talked of, another marriage, which was then about to take place between George Hamilton Chichester, Esq. (calling himself Earl of Belfast, as eldest son of the said Marquis of Donegal) and a lady of high rank, was broken off by reason thereof. It was further alleged, that Dame Elizabeth May, for whom a commission of examination de bene esse had been ob tained of the Court through the representations of Counsel as to her advanced age and very precarious state of health, was at that very time going about to routs and parties, and paying and receiving visits; "that the said Marquis and Marchioness of Donegal, notwithstanding the institution of the present suit of nullity of marriage, still lived and cohabited together;" that such suithad been instituted "collusively between the Marquis and Marchioness for the purpose of obtaining from this Court a sentence in favour of the said reputed but invalid marriage ;" and that their proctors were instructed, under the pretence of conducting a suit for the annulling the same, to adopt any and every step that might tend to secure for their parties such a sentence. The other allegations were of a general nature; that the said marriage was ab initio void and of none effect; that improper means had been resorted to to stop the mouths of witnesses; and that George Hamilton Chichester, Esq. calling himself Earl of Belfast, had declared that he had adopted every measure which might prevent the vali

dity of such marriage being now inquired into. Their allegations, or the major part of them, were denied in detail, by the proctors for the noble parties in the suit, and for the next of kin.

Dr Swabey then addressed the Court. The protest of Mr Arthur Chichester, M.P., was not against the jurisdiction of the Court, but against his liability to be made a party in this suit, either as nephew of the Marquis of Donegal, or as next entitled in the entail of his lordship's estates, failing lawful male issue of his lordship's body. This suit was brought under the act of Geo. II. for the better preventing of clandestine marriages. By that act, the marriage of a minor, without the lawful consent therein described, was declared to be ipso facto void. Such a marriage, therefore, required no declaratory sentence of voidance whatever. It had been permitted, however, since 1760 (the 34th of Geo. II.) to the parties to go for such a declaratory sentence; and the same permission had been extended, beyond the parties themselves, to parents and guardians; the law presuming that these might be interested in the decision of such questions. It was evident that these suits, in the intention of the law, could only be brought inter vivos; and those, the parties immediately contracting the bond of matrimony. With them the question at issue was, whether they had contracted verum matrimonium ; and such was the nature of the question here put at issue between the Marquis and Marchioness of Donegal. But his client, Mr Chichester, could have no interest in that question. He might, indeed, be consequentially interested in his temporal estate, supposing the event of the Marquis of Donegal's death without lawful male issue. But if the marriage should be declared to be invalid, the Marquis might marry again, and have lawful issue. There

fore, the interest of Mr Chichester, at the highest could be contingent merely, and was not absolute enough to constitute him a party in this cause. Supposing that after publication it should suit these noble parties (between whom, the learned Counsel declared, he must say that he saw some sort of consent and collusion) to drop this suit, would it be competent for Mr Chichester to continue it? By no means, for he was not legally or ostensibly a party to it. Neither would Mr Chichester in any case have any title to intervene in the suit, and say, "Let me see fair play, because I am consequentially interested." It followed, therefore, that he was not legally liable to be made a party in it. The desire and will of the other parties, and their citing him to see proceedings, were not enough to clothe him with such a character; and still less could his contingent interest in the entailed estates of Lord Donegal do so. Here was a suit professedly and legally" inter vivos;" and the maxim of law was, "Nemo hæres est viventis." A suit which should of necessity and in law involve Mr Chichester as a party, could only be instituted after the death of one of the other parties. At present he had a right to protest against being drawn in to be one in a suit which might be to him vexatious and expensive. The learned Counsel, in an able and extensive speech, adverted to the case of "Dalrymple v. Dalrymple ;" and quoted at some length from Oughton-(Title 193.-" Quod, causæ tangentes matrimonium postulare solent, et quomodo in curiis Ecclesiasticis propositæ sint, et de forma earundem instituendi ;") and from the 106th canon, as promulgated in the year 1603. Finally, he contended that this Court had no jurisdiction in this matter, it being deposed that the Marchioness of Donegal had been resident for the last four years, and did now

reside, in Ireland. In all cases he should hold that the rule must obtain actor sequitur forum rei. If this proceeding had been laid even in the Higher Court, it might be doubted whether, if the letters of request were not signed, it could be removed thither from the Irish diocese, the words of the statute being express in providing that all such cases should be heard before the ordinary of the diocese wherein they should happen to arise.

Dr Lushington followed on the same side, but our limits prevent us from giving any report of his able speech, or of the speeches of the learned counsel, Drs Burnaby, Phillimore, Adams, and J. Adams, by whom he was followed.

Lord Stowell said, that as this point of jurisdiction had been started, with something of surprise to the other parties, he should allow them a short time to consider it in, and give his opinion next week.

August 1.

After hearing farther counsel, Lord Stowell was of opinion, that the stream of authorities was in favour of the binding a party by his voluntary appearance, and that the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter was established. Dr Swabey intimated Mr Chichester's intention to appeal to some other Court.

Vice-Chancellor's Court, Aug. 4.

Application was made by Mr Arthur Chichester, for a writ of prohibition, directed to the Judge of the Consistorial Court, against proceeding in the above case.

The motion was strongly supported by Mr Wetherall, Dr Lushington, Dr Dodson, and Mr Blake; and resisted by Dr Phillimore, Dr Adams, Mr Blake, Mr Stephens, and Mr Bell.

The Vice-Chancellor pronounced his decision. This was (his honour stated) an application on the part of Mr Arthur Chichester for a writ of prohibition directed to the Judge of the Consistorial Court of London, restraining him from proceeding in a case of nullity of marriage, instituted by the Marquis of Donegal against the Marchioness. It was a case, undoubtedly, which, from its extreme importance, would require the most mature deliberation; but his honour was disposed to give his opinion now-first, because, from the advanced age of some of the witnesses, any delay would expose the parties to the risk of losing the benefit of their testimony; and next, because, the case having been so minutely considered, and so ably discussed by the Counsel on both sides, it must be the fault of the Judge, if he could not at once come to decision upon the question. In the month of May last, the Marquis of Donegal applied to the Judge of the Consistorial Court of London to issue his writ of citation against the Marchioness of Donegal, whom he described as resident in the parish of St James's, Westminster, to answer him in a suit of nullity of marriage. If that writ had been directed to the Marchioness as living in Ireland, then on the face of the record it was clear that the Court had no jurisdiction in the case. But the writ was directed to the parish of St James, Westminster, and she appeared two days after, and pleaded to it, thereby admitting that she was living in the parish of St James, and not taking advantage of the non-description. Being instructed by her legal advisers that this would not determine the rights of her children, although it would establish her own as against her husband; and that, according to the forms of the Ecclesiastical Courts, she had a right to call upon Mr Chichester, as a party interested in the result of the suit, to ap

pear in it, in order that she might establish against him, as well as her husband, the facts of her marriage, he was, at her instance, served with a writ of citation, to which he appeared under protest, upon two grounds; 1st, that he was not a proper party, as having no interest in the suit; and 2dly, that it was instituted by collusion between the Marquis and Marchioness. To this an answer was put in, stating that he was a proper party; and denying all collusion. Mr Chichester replied to that answer, insisting that there must have been collusion, other. wise it was impossible that a party who had been constantly resident in Ireland for the last four years could appear in London to a citation in two days after it had been served upon her. Although this fact seemed to have been at first only introduced as an argument to shew the existence of collusion, it was afterwards urged as a ground of objection to the farther prosecution of the suit. The Judge having decided against the objection, Mr Chichester appealed from that decision to the Court of Arches. Undoubtedly the authority of the very learned and able Judge (Lord Stowell) who had pronounced his opinion upon this question, must weigh considerably with him (the ViceChancellor), yet he must decide the case upon his own judgment, rather than upon the weight of his lordship's authority. There were two questions for his honour to decide:-First, it was stated that Lady Donegal herself was still at liberty to allege want of jurisdiction in the Court; and therefore Mr Chichester must be at liberty to do the same; and next, even if she be not, having, by appearing to the writ and pleading, precluded herself from so doing, still her conduct did not deprive Mr Chichester of the right of objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court; and it was a most important

principle to decide whether the act of a principal party could conclude an intervening party, and intervening too against his consent. First, then, as to the Marchioness being still at liberty to object to the jurisdiction. The want of jurisdiction may arise from two causes:-1st, from the nature of the subject, which is a defect that cannot be cured by any subsequent consent; and, 2dly, from its local jurisdiction, which was the case alleged here, it being admitted that the Court had jurisdiction over the subject. It appeared, indeed it hardly admitted of a question, that this was a Court of limited jurisdiction; and it was plain that it could not have jurisdiction beyond its own limits, by the common law, as well as by the statute of 23 Henry VIII., which was evidently enacted merely in aid of the common law, which it enforced by certain penalties. The same thing might be said of the canon law. His honour did not, therefore, place great weight upon them, except merely as evidence of the principle. Now, as to Lady Donegal's having appeared to the jurisdiction; if she chose, she might have objected, that she was living in Ireland, and consequently was not resident within the jurisdiction of the Court. But she did not think fit so to do; and when she appeared to plead, it was an admission on her part, that she was properly described as living in the parish of St James, Westminster. It was said, that notwithstanding this admission, she had a right to retire from the jurisdiction of the Court at any time before sentence was pronounced. He (the Vice-Chancellor) was bound to say, that no authority had been cited to him which at all touched that question. There were expressions in one of the cases quoted which were consistent with it; but in his honour's opinion, the right of authority, if any there was, was the other