The Queen against Gregory
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1838 |
| Date | 22 November 1838 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 1083
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 1 P. & D. 110. Referred to, R. v. Labouchers, 1884, 12 Q. B. D. 326.
the queen against gregory. Thursday, November 22d, 1838. Libels were published, alleging that the Marquis of B., then married and having children, had, at the time of such marriage, a former wife living, and issue by her; and that their claim to succeed him was in a course of litigation, the result of which would be to annul the present marriage, and bastardize the children. A criminal information was moved for; and the marquis, his eldest son, his wife's brother, and other persons, made affidavit in support of the rule. The marquis admitted that he had cohabited with the lady said to have been his first wife, but his marriage with her, and all the other material statements in the libels, were negatived. Affidavit was made in answer, not confirming those statements, but throwing great blame on the marquis's conduct in his connection with the lady alluded to. Held that, although the marquis himself might be too much inculpated to demand a criminal information, the rule should nevertheless be made absolute for the protection of his family. [S. C. 1 P. & D. 110. Referred to, E. v. Labouchere, 1884, 12 Q. B. D. 326.] A rule nisi was obtained, in this term, for a criminal information against the defendant for libels published in a newspaper called the Satirist. The libels were contained in papers published on three successive Sundays in this year. They stated that the present Marquis of Blandford had, twenty years ago, eloped with a lady, and lived with her in Scotland, where she was introduced by him, and received, as his wife; that she was still living; that a marriage had taken place [908] between them by recognition in Scotland, and could be established beyond doubt; that the matter was in a course of litigation; that there was issue of the Scotch marriage, and that, on its validity being proved, that issue would claim to inherit the dukedom of (a)1 November 5th. Before Lord Denman C.J., Patteson, Williams, and Coleridge Js. (a)2 8th ed. (Morley, Coote, Coventry and White). (e) See Doe dem. Keen v. Walbank, 2 B. & Ad. 554; Doe dem. Gratrex v. Homfray, 6 A. & E. 206; Doe dem. Cadogan v. Ewmt, 7 A. & E. 636, 666. 1084 THE QUEEN V. THE DEPTFORD PIER COMPANY 8 AD. & E. 909. Marlborough after the marquis, and his marriage with the present marchioness would be annulled, and his offspring by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hilliard v Penfield Enterprises Ltd
...MEAD 4 JUR 1014 DEFAMATION ACT 1961 S8 CRIMINAL LAW PROCEDURE ACT 1967 COURTS OF JUSTICE ACTS 1924–1961 DEFAMATION ACT 1961 S6 R V GREGORY 8 AD & E 907 R V LATIMER 15 QB 1077 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 10 1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Gannon delivered the 2nd......
-
Ratton against Davin
...of the same after the usual credit of two months shall have expired, to the extent of not exceeding the (a) See Regina v. Gregory, 8 A. & E. 907. IQ.B.492. HANKEY V. COBB 1221 sum of 1501, at any time during your dealings together. Dated thia 25th day of March 1836. (1. cobb." It was also p......