Courtenay v Miles

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 11 December 1876
• Date: 11 December 1876
• Court: Court for Matrimonial Causes (Ireland)

Mat. Causes.

COURTENAY

and

MILES.

Pouget v. Tomkins 2 Hagg. 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. PrinceENR 3 Hagg. Eccl. 332.

Tongue v. AllenENR 1 Curt. 38.

Brealy v. ReedENR 2 Curt. 833.

Midgley v. WoodENR 4 Sw. & Tr. 267.

Hill v. WilsonELR L. R. 8 Ch. App. 888.

Hope v. Lord Cloncurry Ir. R. 8 Eq. 555.

Gompertz v. KensitELR L. R. 13 Eq. 369.

The King v. The Inhabitants of WroxtonENR 4 B. & Ad. 640.

Brealy v. ReedENR 2 Curt. 833, p. 844.

Tongue v. Tongue 1 Moo. P. C. R. 90.

— Suit of nullity of marriage — Undue publication of banns — Use and adoption of unfamiliar name instead of familiar name — Cognisance of both parties — Clandestinity — Evidence.

284 THE IRISH REPORTS. L R. Court for COURTENAY v. MILES. Mat. Causes. The Irish Marriage Act of 1844 (7 (S,' 8 Vict. c. 81), s. 49-Suit of nullity of 1876. marriage-Undue publication of banns-Use and adoption of unfamiliar . 11 Dec. name instead of familiar name-Cognisance of both parties-Clandestinity- Dec Evidence. Banns having been published between two persons (who afterwards clandesÂÂÂtinely intermarried) under the names " John Miles" and " Maria Courtenay," upon evidence (of one alone of the parties, corroborated, however, by other persons and by documents) that the intending wife had been baptized "Beatrice Mary Victoria Emma Guy," and that instead of the name " Beatrice" (by which she was familiarly known) the name " Maria" (by which she was not known) had been, in the publication of the banns, used and adopted with cogniÂÂÂsance of both parties for the purpose of clandestinity : Held, that the parties had knowingly and wilfully intermarried without due publication of banns ; and that under section 49 of the Irish Marriage Act of 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. o. 81), the marriage was null and void (1). SUIT by a woman for a declaration of nullity of marriage, by reason of undue publication of banns ; instituted by Mrs. Mary Courtenay, widow (mother and guardian ad litem of Beatrice Mary Victoria Emma Guy Courtenay, otherwise Miles, a minor), PetiÂÂÂtioner, against Mr. John Miles, Respondent. (1) 7 & 8 Vict. c. 81, s. 49-" And be it enacted, that, except in the case of marriages by Roman Catholic priests which may now be lawfully celebrated, if any persons shall knowÂÂÂingly and wilfully intermarry after the said thirty-first day of March [1845], in any place other than the church or chapel or certified presbyÂÂÂterian meeting-house in which banns of matrimony between the parties shall have been duly and lawfully published, or specified in the licence, where the marriage is by licence, or the church, chapel, registered building or Office, specified in the notice and Registrar's certificate or licence as aforesaid, or without due notice to the Registrar, or without certificate of notice duly issued, or without licence from the Registrar, in case such notice or licence is necessary under this Act, or in the absence of a Registrar where the presence of a Registrar is necessary under this Act, or if any persons shall knowingly or wilfully, after the said thirty-first day of March [1845], intermarry in any certified presbyterian meeting-house without publication of banns, or any licence, the marriage of all such perÂÂÂsons, except in any case hereinbefore excepted, shall be null and void." PoL. XI.] EQUITY SERIES. 285 Dr. Elrington, Q. C., and. Mr. T. P. Law, appeared. for the Court for Petitioner. Mat. Causes. There was no appearance for the Respondent. COURTENA.Y The Petitioner, her daughter, two clergymen, both of whom v. had published. the banns, and one of whom had performed the Mass. ceremony of marriage, the sextoness of the church in which the ceremony had been performed, and the landlord of the house in which the Respondent had lodged, were examined orally, and the call-book and the marriage-register of the Church were admitted. in evidence. The most...