The King against The Inhabitants of Wroxton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 1833 |
| Date | 20 April 1833 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 597
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 N. & M. 712; 2 L. J. M. C. 64. Referred to, Templeton v, Tyree, 1872, L. R. 2 P. & M. 422; Gompertz v. Kensit, 1872, L. R. 13 Eq. 380; R. v. Rea, 1872, L. R. 1 A. C. 365.
the king against the inhabitants of wkoxton. Saturday, April 20th, 1833. To render a marriage invalid within the 4 G. 4, c. 76, s. 22, which enacts, "That if any persons shall knowingly and wilfully intermarry without due publication of banns, the marriages of such persons shall be null and void," it must be contracted by both parties with a knowledge that no due publication has taken place. And therefore, where the intended husband procured the banns to be published in a Christian and surname which the woman had never borne, but she did not know that fact until after the solemnization of the marriage: it was held, that the marriage was valid. S. C. 1 N. & M. 712; 2 L. J. M. C. 64. Referred to, Templetm v. Tyree, 1872, L. E. 2 P. & M. 422 ; Gompertz v. Kentit, 1872, L. R. 13 Eq. 380 ; R. v. Eea, 1872, L. R. 1 A. C. 365.] On appeal against an order of two justices, whereby Susannah Carpenter, called therein the wife of James Carpenter, was removed from the parish of Moreton Pirikney in the county of Northampton to the parish of Wroxton in the county of Oxford, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case:- James Carpenter, the reputed husband of the pauper, is a parishioner of, and legally settled in, Wroxton, the appellant parish. In 1829 he courted the pauper, whose name was Susannah Spencer, and who was then living in service at Kennington, near London; and she consented to marry him. He knew her name, and told her that he would see the banns properly published. She took no steps in the matter. He told her that they had been published. The marriage took place at St. Mark's Kennington, on the 8th of October 1829. The banns were published in the names of James Carpenter and Agnes Watts ; and the register was produced, containing an entry of the 8th of October 1829 of the marriage of James Carpenter and Agnes Watts by banns; and the parish clerk, who attested the register, identified the pauper as the woman married under the name of [641] Agnes Watts. The pauper had never gone by the name of Agnes Watts. In the marriage service, the clergyman used the name of Agnes, but no surname. The pauper, who till then believed that she was ab'out to be married in her own name, looked at Carpenter, who told her to hold her tongue. The ceremony then proceeded. The clergyman wrote the name of Agnes Watts in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickenson against Naul
...plaintiff, having parted with the goods, lost his lien for the price. Cur. adv. vult. (a) Before Denman C.J., Littledale, and Parke Js. 4 B. & AD. 640. THE KING V. WROXTON 597 Denman C.J., during the term, delivered the judgment of the Court. We are of opinion that no rule should be granted......
-
Courtenay v Miles
...Cons. R. 142, p. 146. Early v. Stevens Consist. 1785. Wrigth v. ElwoodENR 1 Curt. 49, 662. The King v. The Inhabitants of WroxtonENR 4 B. & Ad. 640. Gompertz v. KensitELR L. R. 13 Eq. 369. The Queen v. ReaELR L. R. 1 C. C. R. 365. Templeton v. TyreeELR L. R. 2 P. & D. 420. Wiltshire v. Prin......
-
Tongue v Allen
...determined as to the nature of the proof required. The second case cited was that of The King against The Inhabitants of JPioxton (4 Barn. & Ad. 640), which was a question sent by the Quarter Sessions for the opinion of the Court of King's Bench The facts were found by the justices, and the......
-
THE QUEEN v THOMAS FANNING. [Crown Cases Reserved.]
...283. Sullivan v. Sullivan 2 Hug. Cons. C. 238. Regina v. Inhabitants of TibshelfENR 1 B. & Ad. 190. Regian v. Inhabitants of WroxtonENR 4 B. & Ad. 640. Regina v. Chadwick 11 Q. B. 205. The Queen v. MillisENR 10 Cl. & Fin. 689. Regina v. Millis Smythe & Bourke's R. 211 & 213. The Queen v. Dr......