Wakefield v Mackay
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 1807 |
| Date | 17 November 1807 |
| Court | Consistory Court |
English Reports Citation: 161 E.R. 593
IN THE CONSISTORY COURT
[394] wakefield v. mackay, falsely calling herself wakefield. 17th Nov., 1807.-Suit of nullity of marriage, by reason of publication of banns in a false name, not sustained by the facts. This was a case of nullity of marriage, brought by the husband on the ground that the banns were not published in the true name, as required by the 26 G. 2, c. 33. Judgment-Sir William Scott. This is a suit for the nullity of a marriage, instituted by Daniel Wakefield, Esquire, against Isabella, described in the libel as Isabella Maekay, falsely calhng herself Wakefield. The parties were married in the Church of St. James, Clerkenwell, on the 29th of May, 1805, after a proclamation of banns in the name of Isabella Jaekson. It was observed that this was not a new connection, and it certainly was not, either with relation to the time of their acquaintance, which preceded this marriage, or to the nature and description of their intimacy. Mr. Baster, who was examined, and who appears to be a fellow student of Mr. Watefield, at one of the Inns of Court, deposes, upon the fifth interrogatory, " that he had understood from the said Daniel Wakefield, the producent, that he, the producent, first became acquainted with the ministrant six or seven years ago." This brings it to about the year 1800. It appears that she and Mr. Wakefield cohabited together during the former and latter part of that period, and that she lived with him under the name of Istbella Laacelles. Who is the seducer, and who is the seduced in this [395} case, does not at all appear by this evidence, neither is the age of Mr. Wakefield disclosed; but the woman appears to have been of extreme youth at this time-by the dates assigned, not more than fifteen years of age, which lays some ground of probability that she did not take the active lead in forming this connection. What name she bore at the time Mr. Wakefield was introduced to her, or under what circum-stc%nces she was living, does not at all appear. In 1802 she took the name of Lascelles, Mr. Wakefield, at the same time, assuming the same name, and passing as Mr. Lascelles, f In this case it did not appear that there had been a marriage celebrated between the parties, and no such fact was pleaded in the articles. In the case of Blackmare and Thorp v. Snder, Arches, 29th April, 1816, on articles for incestuous cohabitation between a father-in-law, and the daughter of his first wife, a marriage was pleaded; and the articles prayed the Judge to pronounce such marriage null and void. The sentence passed in that form, enjoining also separation and penance. 594 WAKEFIELD V. WAKEF1ELD 1 HAG. CON. 396 the husband of Mrs. Lascelles: he introduced her, as his wife, to a boarding school, where he visited her, he passing under that name. In 1803 she took the name of Thorpe-the manner in which that was done is thus described in her answers, " that upon going to Salisbury and other places in the character of an actress, Mr. Wakefield tendered to ter a list of names for her acceptance, recommending the name of Baddeley , tbat she disapproved of that name, and chose, in preference, the name of Thorpe In 1604: she returned to London-they then cohabited together; he under the name of Mr. Thorpe, and she under the name of Mrs. Thorpe; he taking a house and keeping a house, paying bills, and carrying on other transactions in that name." In the month of September in that year a Roman Catholic marriage was celebrated between them, and she assumed his proper name of Wakefield with his full approbation and consent. After this ceremony, solemnly though not vahdly performed, she attracted the affections of this witness, Mr. Baster. He admits, upon an interrogatory, "that [396] after the said marriage, according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, he himself made professions of love and affection to the ministrant, and endeavoured to prevail upon her to leave Mr. Wakefield, and marry him, the respondent; and in or about the month of April, 1805, he caused banns to be published in the Parish Church of Iver, for the marriage of himself with the said Isabella Wakefield, by the name of Isabella Jackson." That this offer on the part of Mr. Baster, was produced by any effort of her own, is, I think, repelled by the account which Mr. Baster gives-"that he was the person who endeavoured to prevail upon her." He describes her as a woman of an engaging person and interesting manners. The only unfair practice imputed to her is, that she fraudulently concealed the circumstance of her birth and parentage, and pretended a connection with divers noble and illustrious families. To that fact Mr. Baster is the only witness, and he proves " that she did state herself to be the daughter of the Honourable Mrs. Sandford, and that she was connected with the Marquis of Thomond, and other considerable persons " That this was done for the purpose of effecting any marriage,, or the particular marriage upon which I have now to decide, does not appear. It might be the gratification of an idle vanity, the purchase of a little present impoit-ance among...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheffield City Council v E and S
...validity of a marriage". That, I do not doubt, is still as good law now as it was both when laid down by Sir William Scott in Wakefield v Mackay (orse Wakefield) (1807) 1 Hagg Con 394 at p 398 and when later confirmed by Sir Francis Jeune P in Moss v Moss (orse Archer) [1897] P 263. But, as......
-
L.B. v T.MacC.
...(G) 2001 3 IR 1 2000/9/3366 CONSTITUTION ART 41.1.3 S v S 1976-1977 ILRM 156 MOSS v MOSS (ORSE ARCHER) 1897 1 P 263 WAKEFIELD v MACKAY 1807 1 HAG CON 394 1 PHILLIM 134N 161 ER 593 O'M (M) (ORSE O'C) v O'C (B) 1996 1 IR 208 F (P) v O'M (G) (ORSE F (G)) 2001 3 IR 1 Abstract: Family law - Annu......