Willmett v Harmer and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 1839 |
| Date | 14 February 1839 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 678
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Sittings at Westminster, after Hilary Term, 1839, before Loid Deninan, C. J Feb Uth, 1839 willmett v harmer and another (A plea of justification to a libel, m which the defendant justifies on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of bigamy, requires the same strictness of proof as is required on the tnal of an indictment for bigamy If, in justifying a libel that the plaintiff was guilty of " polygamy " in marrying three wives, who were all living at the same time, the defendant pleads that the plaintiff was guilty of " Polvgamy " in marrying three persons named, who were all living at the same time; it is sufficient proof of the marriages to shew the actual marriages as to two, and reputation and cohabitation as to the third,-because if by the term " Plygamy " the offence of bigamy is meant, the substance of the issue is made out by proof of the two marriages ; and if by the term " polygamy " the mere fact of these marriages is meant, as distinct from the crime of bigamy, evidence of reputation and cohabitation is receivable ) Libel.-The declaration stated that the defendants published the following libel of and concerning the plaintiff - [696] " One Captain John Alexander Willmett it appears has been committed by the learned Dogberries of Maidstone, for the capital offence of having married a great number of wives, three of whom appeared in person against the gentleman ' (meaning that the plaintiff had been guilty of bigamy and polygamy in marrying three women, and that the said three women appeared m person against the said plaJntiff), " a great many other ladies being kept in reserve for the trial This King Solomon's propensity used to be a hanging matter in England, and even now it is a felony, and yet what are the results of this committal The gallant captain is admitted to bail in the sum of £400, and the only inference is that by the laws of England any man may marry as many wives as he pleases, and of course swindle them out of their properties, provided he chooses, and can afford to forfeit his recognizances to the amount of £400. Our magistrates are extremely adroit in fixing a price for almost ervery crime under heaven, and here we have a sort of judicial proclamation that a gentleman may indulge in polygamy to the extent of at least three wives at a time at the price of about £133, 6s Sd per wife We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MAGEE v MARK. [Exchequer.]
...Law Rep. 514. Thurtell v. BeaumontENR 8 B. Moore, 612; S. C., 1 Bing. 340. Chalmers v. ShackellENR 6 Car. & P. 475. Willmett v. HarmerENR 8 Car & P. 695. Baker v. Rusk 15 Q. B. 870. Davy v. BakerENR 4 Burr. 2471. Williams v. The East India CompanyENR 3 East, 192. The Great Northern Railway ......
-
Dunne v O'Grady
...Mountney v. WattonENR 2 B. & Ad. 673. M'Gregor v. GregoryENR 11 M. & W. 287. Clarkson v. LawsonENR 6 Bing. 587. Willmett v. HarmerENR 8 C. & P. 695. Prager v. Shaw 7 Ir. Jur. 115. Child v. AffleckENR 9 B. & C. 403. Tuson v. Evans 12 A. & E. 733. Toogood v. SpringENR 1 Cr. M. & R. 181. Dunma......
-
Kelly's Carpetdrome Ltd v Gaynor & Tuffy
...WLR 815 R V TERRY 1984 2 WLR SARFLAX LTD, IN RE 1979 1 CH 592 STATHAM V STATHAM 1929 P 131 THURTELL V BEAUMONT 1 BING 339 WILLMETT V HARMER 8 C&P 695 Synopsis: EVIDENCE Onus of proof Fraud - Company debts - Personal responsibility - Unlimited liability - Liquidator's claim under s.297(1) of......