Middleton v Janverin, falsely calling herself Middleton Arches
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1802 |
| Date | 21 November 1802 |
| Court | Consistory Court |
English Reports Citation: 161 E.R. 797
IN THE CONSISTORY COURT
Referred to, Ogden v. Ogden, [1908] P. 63.
[437] middleton v. janverin, falsely calling herself middleton Arches, 21st Nov., 1802.-Marriage of English subjects celebrated abroad, not according tO'the lex loci, held invalid [Referred to, Ogden v Ogden, [1908] P. 63.] This was a suit of nullity of marriage brought by Edmund Py tts Middleton against Martha Janverin, calling herself Middleton. The marriage was had between the parties at Furpes, m Flanders. The case was argued by Sir John Nicholl and Dr. Laurence on the part of the husband : and by Dr Arnold and Dr Swabey for the wife Judgment-Sir W. JVynne. This is a suit of nullity of marriage, brought before me by lettjers of request from the Chancellor of Winchester, by Edmund Pytts Middleton against Martha Jan verm, falsely calling herself Middleton The facts pleaded in the libel abd admitted in the personal answers of Martha Middleton are, " that Edmund Pytts Middleton, then a minor between the age of sixteen and seventeen (his father being dead, and his mother married to a second husband), was, in the montb of December, 1776, sent to the town of St. Omer, in French Flandeis, for the purpose of education, and of learning the French language, that he arrived at St Omer on the 25th of December of that year, and there became acquainted with an English woman of the age of twenty-eight years, who at that time lodged and boarded at a private house at St. Omer On the 28th of March following, they set out with two English ladies for Austrian Flanders, in order to procure a marriage, and arrived at Furnes, which was then one of the [438] barrier towns under the dominion of the empress queen, but, by virtue of the treaty of LTtrecht, was at that time garrisoned by a body of troops in the service of their High Mightinesses the States General, that they arrived at an inn on Easter Sunday, and that, very soon after their arrival, one of tha ladies enquired whether there was not a minister who married English persons 798 MIDDLETON V. JANVERIN 2 HAG CON. 439 there, and was informed that Mr. Vanderbrugge, minister of the Dutch garrison, had married several English people there, or to that effect." She further answers, " that although she was present when the said conversation passed, that she did not understand the same, because such conversation was carried on in the French language, which she did not understand , she says that about eleven o'clock in the morning of Easter Sunday, the 30th of March, 1777, she, with the said Edmund Pytts Middleton and two English ladies, went with the landlord of the inn as a guide to the house of Mr Vanderbrugge, who was, as she believes, a priest or minister in holy orders of the Calvmistic or Lutheran Church, that on her arrival there, Mr. Vanderbrugge was informed by one of the English ladies that Edmund Pytts Middleton and this respondent were desirous of being married by him, and that he did celebrate a marriage between Edmund Pytts Middleton and this respondent, in a room in his house, in the presence of the two English ladies, and a man who officiated as clerk chi the occasion, and she believes that such marriage was solemnized in the Dutch language, and that Edmund Pytts Middleton, the two English ladies, and herself, were then all [439] ignorant of that language; that the matnage was solemnized without any publication of banns, licence, or dispensation previously obtained, and that it was had without the knowledge of his mother or her husband, but whether he had any guardian she does not know. She says that after the solemnization of the marriage they quitted Fumes, and proceeded together to Nieuport, where they staid all night, and on the day following went to Bruges, and from thence to Lisle, and returned to St. Omer about a week after they had quitted it. She says that during the journey from Furnes to St. Omer, it was proposed by this respondent to Edmund Pytts Middleton that, on their return to St. Omer, no notice whatever should be taken by either of them of the aforesaid marriage so had and solemnized between them, and accordingly they did not take any notice of such marriage, that they never lived or cohabited together, nor owned and acknowledged each other as man and wife at St. Omer, but that each of them lived as before, apart, in their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross Smith v Ross Smith
...to draw any general inference from it. The Appellant placed some reliance on a short passage in the judgment of Sir W. Wynne in Middleton v. Janverin (1802) 2 Hag. Con. 437. The marriage alleged to be void had been celebrated in the United Provinces of the Low Countries and Sir W. Wynne sai......
-
Taczanowska (orse. Roth) v Taczanowski
...the parties subject themselves to have the validity of the contract determined by the laws of that country. 5 In ( Middleton v. Jasverin 2 Hagg. Con. 437; 161 E.R. 797) Sir William Wynne referred to this case in these words)) "I also remember to have heard that that Judgment was founded on ......