Mary Lane against Goodwin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 February 1843 |
| Date | 04 February 1843 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 935
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 3 G. & D. 610; 12 L. J. Q. B. 157; 7 Jur. 372.
mary lane against goodwin. Saturday, February 4th, 1843. A licence under which marriage has been solemnized, and in which one of the parties is described by a name wholly different from his own, is not void by the misdescription. Semble (per Patteson J.), that it would be void if the name of one person had been inserted with a fraudulent intention that the licence should be used by another. [S. C. 3 G. & D. 610; 12 L.;J. Q. B. 157 ; 7 Jur. 372.] Trover for cider, apples, casks, &c. Pleas: 1. Not guilty. 2. Plaintiff not possessed, &c. 3. Leave and licence. Replication to pleas 1 and 2, similiter : to plea 3, de injurid. Issue thereon. On the trial, before Patteson J., at the Gloucestershire Spring Assizes, 1842, the material facts proved were as follows. The goods were conveyed to the defendant by bill of sale (July 29th, 1841) from George Rudman, with whom the plaintiff was living as his wife. Afterwards the plaintiff preferred a charge of bigamy against Rudman, alleging that, when he married her, he was already married to one Mary Tibbells, then living. On the making of this charge the defendant took possession of the goods. The [362] plaintiff, as a feme sole, laid claim to them as her own; but defendant sold them and converted the proceeds. In 1814 Rudman was taken into custody at the instance of the parish officers of Stanford in the Vale, Berkshire, as the reputed father of a child of which Mary Tibbella was pregnant, and was married to her by licence. He gave his name as George Neate at the times of the apprehension and marriage, and was named so in the licence, but had never gone by that name before (a). It was objected, on the trial, that the licence was invalid on this account, and the marriage null; and Rex v. Tibshelf (1 B. & Ad. 190), was cited. Patteson J., on the authority of Cope v. Burt(c), overruled the objection; and the plaintiff had a verdict. In Easter term, 1842, a rule nisi was obtained for a new trial. The Court now called upon Greaves in support of the rule. The authority of Cope v. Burt(c) need not be disputed ; but it differs from this case. The wife there had been known for several years by the name under which she was married ; and Sir W. Scott, in the Consistory Court, gave that as a reason for his judgment in favour of the marriage. That reason prevailed also in Rex v...
To continue reading
Request your trial