charged the defendant with having unlawfully assaulted and abused a female. She and the defendant were each represented by attorneys, and at the hearing, while the attorney for the woman was opening his case, the attorney for the defendant objected that the facts he had stated constituted a case of rape, and that the justices had no jurisdiction. It was then suggested that the case should be treated as a charge of an aggravated assault. The case proceeded, and the defendant was convicted of an aggravated assault. It appeared by affidavits upon an application for a habeas corpus, with a view to the discharge of the defendant, that the evidence of the woman was to the effect that the defendant had ravished her :-Held, per Pollock, C. B., and Wilde, B., that the charge was one over which the justices had no jurisdiction; and that it was competent for the court to look at the evidence with a view to see whether, in point of fact, the case was within the jurisdiction of justices. Thompson, In re, 30 L. J., M. C. 19; 6 H. & N. 193; 9 W. R. 203; 9 Cox, C. C. 70; 3 L. T., N. S. 409; 7 Jur., N. S. 48. Held, per Bramwell, B., and Channell, B., that the charge did not imply more than a common assault, that the justices had jurisdiction, and that the court could not review the decision of the justices upon the fact. Ib. (e) Amounting to Felony. A party was convicted summarily by two justices for an assault. The act appeared to have been done with intent to commit an unnatural of fence, but not to have been attended with violence. A certiorari was moved for, on the ground that the offence, if committed, was within 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 29, which prevents justices from convicting where an attempt to commit felony appears. The court refused to interfere, as no excess of jurisdiction ap peared on the face of the conviction, and the evidence, of which the magistrates were the judges, did not clearly shew an intention to commit felony. Anon., 1 B. & Ad. 382. (f) Fines. Before 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 42.] By 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 27, power was given to two justices, in cases of assault, to impose upon the of fender a fine not exceeding 57., "to be paid to some one of the overseers of the poor, or to some other officer of the parish, township, or place in which the offence shall have been committed, to be by such overseer or officer paid over to the use of the general rate of the county, riding, or division in which the parish, township, or place shall be situate;" and s. 35 provided that the conviction might be drawn up in a given form, or in any other form of words to the same effect:-Held, that a conviction by which the penalty was ordered to be paid "to the treasurer of the county of C., in which the offence was committed, to be by him applied according to the directions of the statute," or the party in default to be imprisoned for two months, was bad, and that the justices were liable in trespass for the imprisonment of the party under it. Chaddock v. Wilbraham, 5 C. B. 645; 3 New Sess. Cas. 227; 12 Jur. 136; 17 L. J., M. C. 79. A. was summoned under 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, ss. 27, 33, for an assault. He did not appear, and the justices, upon proof of service, heard the case and convicted A. The conviction was drawn up in the form given in sect. 35, and by it A. was adjudged to forfeit and pay 27. 10s. and Ils. 6d. for costs; and, in default of immediate payment, to be imprisoned for six weeks, unless the sum should be sooner paid; and the conviction directed that the 27. 10s. should be paid to one of the overseers of the parish within which the offence was committed, and the 11s. 6d. to "husband or wife shall have been the party aggrieved. And directly" continually absent from such perthereafter, no payment being made, son for the space of seven years the justices, in the absence of A.," then last past, and shall not have and without further summons, issu- "been known by such person to be ed a warrant of commitment for " 'living within that time, or shall default of payment :-Held, that "extend to any person who, at the the commitment was legal. Arnold "time of such second marriage, v. Dimsdale, 2 El. & Bl. 580; 17 "shall have been divorced from the Jur. 1157; 22 L. J., M. C. 161. "bond of the first marriage, or to 66 66 The Statute.]-By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 57," whosoever, being married, shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the "second marriage shall have taken "place in England or Ireland or "elsewhere, shall be guilty of felony, "and, being convicted thereof, shall "be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servi"tude for any term not exceeding seven years and not less than five years (27 & 28 Vict. c. 47); or "to be imprisoned for any term not 'exceeding two years, with or with"out hard labour;" 66 66 66 "And any such offence may be "dealt with, inquired of, tried, de"termined, and punished in any "county or place in England or Ire"land where the offender shall be apprehended or be in custody, in "the same manner in all respects as "if the offence had been actually "committed in that county or "place;" "Provided that nothing in this "section contained shall extend to any second marriage contracted "elsewhere than in England and "Ireland by any other than a sub"ject of her Majesty, or to any per 66 son marrying a second time whose 66 any person whose former marriage "shall have been declared void by "the sentence of any court of com"petent jurisdiction." (Similar to 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 22.) By 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, 1 Jac. 1, c. 11, 35 Geo. 3, c. 67; and so much of 4 Edw. 1, s. 3, 18 Edw. 3, s. 3, and 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, as related to this subject, were repealed. By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 95, the 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 22, is repealed. In respect of what marriages.]— After a marriage contracted in England, the parties went to reside in Scotland, where they were divorced by reason of adultery by the hus band-he then married again in England, and on a trial for bigamy, was found guilty, notwithstanding the Scotch sentence of divorce. Lolley's case, 2 C. & F. 567, n.; R. & R. C. C. 237. Semble, that assuming a fictitious name upon the second marriage will not prevent the offence from being complete. Rex v. Allison, R. & R. C. C. 109. And if the prisoner has written down the names for the publication of the banns, he is precluded from saying that the woman was not known by the name he delivered in, and that she was not rightly described by that name in the indictment. Rex v. Edwards, R. & R. C. C. 283. On an indictment against a man for bigamy, it appeared, that for the purpose of concealment, the second wife was married by a name by which she had never been known: -Held, that this was no answer to the charge, although, if the first marriage had taken place under such circumstances, that would have been thereby rendered void. Rex v. Penson, 5 C. & P. 412-Gurney. If the first marriage was by banns, it is no objection that the parties did not reside in the parish where the banns were published, and the marriage celebrated. Rex v. Hind, R. & R. C. C. 253. quently rendered invalid by the marriage of either of the parties, during the life of the other, with a third person. Rex v. St. John Delpike, 2 B. & Ad. 226. The 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 54, renders absolutely void all marriages solemnized after the time of its passing between persons within the prohibited degrees, and which were previously voidable only by sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court pronounced during the life of both parties. Reg. v. Chadwick (in error), 11 Q. B. 173; 12 Jur. 174; 17 L. J., M. C. 33; 2 Cox, C. C. 381. Therefore, a marriage with deceased wife's sister contracted after the passing of that act, is absolutely void. Ib. In the publication of banns in 1817, a woman named Mary Hodgkinson was called White, a surname entered by mistake in the register of her baptism, but which she had never gone by or been entitled to. The false name was given to the officiating clergyman without any intention to mislead; nor did any individual having any interest in the marriage appear to have been deceived-Held, that the marriage was void. It might have been otherwise, if (without any fraudu--Held, that this was bigamy in A., lent intent) there had been only a partial variation of the name, or the addition or suppression of one christian name, or the name had been one which the party had ever used or been known by. Rex v. Tibshelf, 1 B. & Ad. 190. To render a marriage invalid within 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 22, which enacts, "that if any person shall knowingly and wilfully intermarry without the publication of banns, the marriage of such persons shall be null and void," it must be contracted by both parties with a knowl. edge 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, the marriage was valid. Rex v. Wroxton, 1 N. & M. 712; 4 B. & Ad. 640. A marriage, which would have been void by 26 Geo. 2, c. 33, and had once been rendered valid by 3 Geo. 4, c. 75, s. 2, cannot be subse A., a married woman, in the lifetime of her husband, married B., who was a widower, B. having been the husband of A.'s deceased sister: and that the circumstance that the marriage of A. and B. would have been wholly void under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 54, s. 2, even if A. had been unmarried, made no difference. Reg. v. Brawn, 1 C. & K. 144; 1 Cox, C. C. 33-Denman. Held, also, that if B. knew at the time of his marriage with A. that she was a married woman, he might be convicted of the felony of counselling A. to commit bigamy. Ib. Minors.-The marriage of a minor by licence without the consent required by 4 Geo. 4, c. 75, s. 16, is valid. Rex v. Birmingham, 2 M. & R. 230; 8 B. & C. 20. der 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 25. So un It is not necessary under a prosecution for bigamy for a subsequent marriage of a minor, to prove the consent of the parent to the first marriage. Reg. v. Clark, 2 Cox, C. C. 183-Rolfe. Irish.-By 9 Geo. 2, c 11 (Irish), the marriage of a minor without consent is void; but if no suit be commenced within one year after the marriage, it shall be good. Church, in 1858, and in April, Therefore, where it appeared in a 1865, during the life-time of S., case of bigamy that the first mar-he was married to B. in a Roriage was celebrated in Ireland by man Catholic church, in Dublicence, when the prisoner was a lin. C. knew A. six months preminor, without his father's consent: viously to the marriage, and believ-Held, that it was no defence, as ed him to be a Roman Catholic. more than a year had elapsed from He told B. that he was a Roman the time of the marriage. Rex v. Catholic. He had been born and Jacobs, 1 M. C. C. 140. reared a Protestant, and had attended the Protestant service on Christmas morning, 1865. The jury found that A. was a professing Protestant within twelve months previously to the marriage, and that he had held himself out as a Roman Catholic to the clergyman who married him, and had told the woman he was a Roman Catholic, and the jury convicted him of bigamy:-Held, that he was wrongly convicted. Reg. v. Fanning, 17 Ir. C. L. R. 289; 14 W. R. 701; 10 Cox, C. C. 411. But by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 81, s. 32, proof of consent of parents or guardians is unnecessary. The marriage of a Protestant in Ireland to a Roman Catholic, by a Roman Catholic priest, is void by 19 Geo. 2, c. 33 (Irish). Sunderland's case, 2 Lewin, C. C. 109Patteson. In Ireland, the marriage of two Roman Catholics by a Roman Catholic priest is good; and if a person at the time of such marriage declares himself to be a Roman Catholic, and the woman is a Roman Catholic, this is a good marriage as against him; and if he is afterwards tried for bigamy on this marriage (he having been before married to another wife, who was still alive), he will not be allowed to set up his supposed Protestantism as a defence to the charge. Reg. v. Orgill, 9. C. & P. 80-Alderson. To prove a marriage of two Roman Catholics in Ireland, evidence was given that the Rev. W. O'S, (who officiated) acted as a Roman Catholic priest, and that the marriage (as was usual) took place at his house, and he asked the parties if they were Roman Catholics, and that they said they were so; that part of the ceremony was in English and part in Latin; and that having asked the man if he would take the woman as his wife, and the woman if she would take the man as her husband, and each having answered in the affirmative, he pronounced them married :-Held, sufficient. Ib.. A. was married to S., according to the rites of the Established Scotch.]-For what is necessary to constitute a valid marriage in Scotland, see Graham's case, 2 Lewin, C. C. 97; Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hagg. Cons. R. 54. A., a subject of her Majesty, and resident in England, was married in Scotland, according to the law of Scotland. He subsequently married again in the same country, and, according to the same law, his first wife being alive. Both wives, at the time of their marriage, were resident in England :-Held, that he had committed an offence against 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 22. Reg. v. Topping, Dears. C. C. 647; 2 Jur., Ń. S. 428; 25 L. J., M. C. 72; 7 Cox, C. C. 103. On a trial for bigamy a woman was called as a witness, who stated that she was present at a ceremony performed in a private house in Scotland, by a minister of some religious denomination; that she herself was married in the same way, and that parties always married in Scotland in private houses:-Held, that she was not a competent witness to prove the law of Scotland as to marriage, and that her evidence | perintendent registrar, and that it did not prove the fact of a marriage. Reg. v. Povey, 6 Cox, C. C. 83; Dears. C. C. 32; 22 L. J., M. C. 19. was correct:-Held, that the document was admissible as an examined copy or extract from the superintendent registrar's book, under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14, and was Proof of a marriage before the registrar, although in a chapel not regularly licensed and registered, is sufficient. Reg. v. Tilson, 1 F. & F. 54-Wightman. In what Chapels or Places.]—therefore good evidence of the due Where the first marriage was sol- registration of the chapel. Ib. emnized in a chapel, it was necessary to show either that the chapel was one in which banns had been usually published before 26 Geo. 3, c. 33, or that the chapel was built and consecrated after that act, and before 6 Geo. 4, c. 92; and proof that marriages have been solemnized there for the last twenty years is not sufficient for this purpose. Reg. v. Bowen, 2 C. & K. 227Platt. The prisoner was convicted on an indictment for bigamy. It was alleged that the first marriage took place in a dissenting chapel duly licensed for marriages, and a witness was called who proved that he was present at the marriage, that it took place in the dissenting chapel in the presence of the registrar, that the entry of the marriage in the registrar's book was signed by the witness as a witness to the marriage, and that the parties afterwards lived together as husband and wife for some years:-Held, first, that the parol testimony of the witness sufficiently proved the fact of marriage. Reg. v. Manwaring, Dears. & B. C. C. 132; 2 Jur., N. S. 1236; 26 L. J., M. C. 10; 7 Cox, C. C. 192. Held, secondly, that there was primâ facie evidence that the chapel was duly registered, and was a place in which marriages might legally be solemnized. Ib. Proof of a marriage in a chapel in the presence of the registrar of the district and two witnesses, is sufficient without proving that the chapel was registered. Reg. v. Cradock, 3 F. & F. 837-Willes. Upon an indictment for bigamy, it appeared that the prisoner was married to his first wife in a place which had been registered pursuant to 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85. It was proved that notice of the marriage had been given to the superintendent registrar; but that notice was not produced by him. The registers of the marriage and of the building, were, however, produced and read. It was objected that there ought to have been further evidence that due notice was given to the superintendent registrar; that he issued his certificate thereon, and that the marriage was celebrated in the building specified in that notice and certificate:-Held, that the evidence given proved a sufficient primâ facie case, and that the conviction was right. Reg. v. Hawes, 2 Cox, C. C. 432; 1 Den. C. C. 270. 2. On Absence or Death of Parties. Semble, that the construction of 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 22, in relation to A witness produced a certificate, the offence of bigamy, is this: not under the hand of the superintend- that the party, charged to be deent registrar, of the fact that the prived of the benefit of its provision chapel had been duly registered. as a defence, must have known at It did not purport to be a copy or the time when he contracted the an extract, but the witness proved second marriage that the first wife that he had examined it with the had been alive during the seven register book at the office of the su-years preceding; but that to bring |