were known to have belonged to the respondents, should have ascertained that the purchase money had been paid for them, or should at least have taken care that the sugars were duly transferred into their names, instead of which they continued to act with the utmost supineness, until the intimation of Bowie and Co.'s insolvency became noised abroad, when they sought, by going to Alexander's and getting the memorandum from him, to change the possession of these sugars, which they could not legally do in that way. The decision of this case will not in the least degree embarrass commerce, but will tend to make men more careful and watchful in their dealings. Interlocutors of the Court below affirmed, with costs. LOUISA ADELAIDE PIERS and FLORENCE A. M. DE KERRIGUEN (formerly PIERS), . SIR HENRY SAMUEL PIERS, Baronet, M.} Appellants. Respondent. Marriage. Evidence. Presumption. Costs. Practice. Appen dixes. The question of the validity of a marriage cannot be tried like any other question of fact which is independent of presumption, for the law will presume in favour of marriage. There is a strong legal presumption in favour of marriage, particularly after the lapse of a great length of time, and this presumption must be met by strong, distinct, and satisfactory disproof. Where, therefore, two persons had shown a distinct intention to marry, and a marriage had been, in form, celebrated between them, by a regularly ordained clergyman, in a private house, as if by special licence, and the parties, by their acts at the time, showed that they believed such marriage to be a real and valid marriage, the rule of presumption was applied in favour of its validity, though no licence could be found, nor any entry of the granting of it, or of the marriage itself, could be discovered; and though the Bishop of the diocese (during whose episcopacy the matter occurred), when examined many years afterwards on the subject, deposed to his belief that he had never granted any licence for such marriage.1 1 See Bargate v. Shortridge, 5 House of Lords Cases, at p. 308. The House will not grant the costs of an appeal to come out of the estate, upon a mere miscarriage of the Court below, where the subject of litigation, though in the result decided by the Court, was one which might have required to be tried as a question of fact. The House strongly condemned the custom of each party printing an Appendix to his Case, and desired that, in future, a joint Appendix might alone be printed. * THIS was an appeal against a decree pronounced in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, by Lord Chancellor Brady, in a suit instituted by the appellants on the 29th October, 1845, in which they sought to establish their title to a charge for raising 332 a sum of 40007. out of certain estates, now in the possession of the respondent Sir H. S. Piers. The appellants claimed to be the lawful daughters of the late Sir John Bennett Piers, who when he became of age, in 1794, had joined his father, Sir Pigott W. Piers, in suffering a recovery of certain lands settled upon the father's marriage. By the re-settlement of the estate then made, it was "provided, declared, and agreed upon, by and between all the parties thereto, that it should and might be lawful to and for the said John Piers (and the other persons to whom estates for life were therein limited), when and as they should respectively be in possession of the premises and hereditaments aforesaid, by virtue of the limitations aforesaid, to settle by way of jointure for any wife or wives, a sum of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of 600l. a-year, which jointure or jointures should be in bar of dower or thirds, and also that they the said John Piers and the said other persons therein named, to whom estates for life were limited as aforesaid, respectively, as they should be in possession under the limitations aforesaid, might charge said premises and hereditaments, as and for a portion or portions for younger children, with a sum of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of 4000l." Sir Pigott William Piers died in the month of April, 1798, leaving his eldest son John (who was thenceforth known as Sir John Bennett Piers), and five other sons, him surviving, three of whom died in the lifetime of Sir John, without issue. The fifth son Frederick died after his father, leaving the respondent, now Sir Henry Samuel Piers, his eldest son and heir at law, surviving. Sir John Bennett Piers, upon the death of his father, entered into the possession of the estates comprised in the * 333 deed of 1794, and so continued till his death. In the year 1803, he became acquainted with Elizabeth Denny, alias King, then an actress at Astley's theatre, in Dublin, whom he removed from the theatre, and who went to live with him, and had by him seven children: Henrietta, born November, 1803; Henry, born October, 1805; John Edward, in October, 1807; W. Stapleton, born November, 1809; George, December, 1810; and the appellants, Louisa and Florence, born respectively the 23d June, 1815, and 17th April, 1819. It was alleged on the part of the appellants, that while their parents were resident in the Isle of Man, namely, on the 27th of May, 1815, a marriage was solemnized between them in the parish of Kirk Bradden, in that island, by the Reverend T. O. Stewart, an Irish clergyman, then assistant curate of St. George, Douglas, and it was in virtue of this alleged marriage that the appellants claimed, in the character of lawful "younger children," to be entitled to a charge on the respondent's estate, created in their favour by Sir John Bennett Piers, in pursuance of the power reserved to him by the deed of 1794. The evidence, given by the appellants, as to the marriage was in substance as follows: The Reverend Thomas Orpen Stewart, A. M., was, on the 2d of November, 1810, named domestic chaplain to Dr. Crigan, then bishop of Sodor and Man, and on the 25th of January, 1812, was appointed by the Bishop assistant to the curate of Saint George's Chapel, Douglas. Sir John Bennett Piers lived at a house called Leece Lodge, near Douglas, situate in the parish of Kirk Bradden, but not within the district of Saint George's Chapel. In the year 1814, the Rev. Dr. Murray * 334 succeeded Dr. Crigan, as bishop of Sodor and * Man, and the Rev. T. O. Stewart continued occasionally to perform duties as a clergyman at St. George's Chapel. Previously to the year 1815, Sir J. B. Piers, finding that there was likely to be fresh offspring from his connection with Miss Denny, expressed, in strong terms, his desire to have legitimate children, who could succeed to his estate. Lady Piers, in her deposition, made with regard to this matter the following statement: 66 "I am quite certain that my late husband fully contemplated and intended that a marriage between him and me should be solemnized, for a period of more than two years before it took place in the year 1815; and I am also quite certain that he intended to solemnize a legal and valid marriage, as he frequently expressed to me an anxious wish that I might have issue which would inherit his estates, and that he would make a certain and safe provision for me and my children; and I know that my late husband was desirous that his brother, the Reverend Octavius Piers, who was then residing in England, should perform the ceremony of marrying us; and that his said brother would come to the Isle of Man for that purpose, which he was unable to do, as his wife objected, in consequence of her approaching confinement, and was afterwards delayed, until my late husband became intimately acquainted with the Reverend Thomas Orpen Stewart, who was at that time assistant chaplain at the chapel of Saint George's, Douglas, in the Isle of Man." It was alleged, that this intended marriage actually took place in the year 1815, being celebrated under a special license, at Leece Lodge, by the Reverend Thomas Orpen Stewart, in the presence of John Edwards, then a captain in the regiment of Ancient Britons. The following certificate was given: "I certify, that I * have this day the 27th May, 1815, in the parish of Bradden, * 335 Isle of Man, celebrated, according to the rights and ceremonies of the church of Great Britain and Ireland, as by law established, a marriage between John Bennett Piers, Baronet, of Tristernagh Abbey, county Westmeath, Ireland, and Elizabeth King, alias Denny, spinster. Signed the day and year above. "T. O. STEWART, Clerk, A.M. In the presence of JOHN EDWARDS." "JOHN B. PIERS, This document was produced in evidence by the appellants, as proof of the marriage of their parents. It was also argued upon as showing the intentions of the parties. And, for the purpose of proving Sir J. B. Piers's belief that a valid marriage had been celebrated, evidence was given that, immediately afterwards, he executed a will in the following form: "I hereby will and bequeath to my wife, Elizabeth Piers, a jointure of 600l. per annum, to be paid out of my estates in Westmeath and Longford. "Witness my hand and seal, May 27th, 1815. "Present, T. O. STEWART, JOHN EDWARDS." "JOHN B. PIERS. [241] In 1821, Sir John and Lady Piers went to reside in Ireland, and then a second marriage was duly solemnized between them. In 1836, Sir John executed, under the powers of the deed of 1794, a charge of 20007., in favour of each of his two daughters, born subsequently to May, 1815, and by a will, dated 30th of May, 1842, he ratified the appointments of the jointure and charges. Sir J. B. Piers died, in July, 1845, without lawful issue male, and the respondent entered into possession of the settled estates, and took the title. A bill had been filed against the respondent and others, in * 336 the lifetime of Sir J. B. Piers, praying that the charges in favour of the appellants might be declared to be established. That bill was dismissed as premature, but without costs, as the then Lord Chancellor (Lord Plunket) was of opinion that the legitimacy of the plaintiffs in that bill (the present appellants) had been unnecessarily and improperly contested, and had been satisfactorily established.1 Several witnesses were examined in that cause. Sir J. B. Piers had himself been examined, and as to the fact of marriage, deposed, "I have looked on the paper writing marked (A), and indorsed my name thereon. It is the certificate of my marriage, dated the 27th of May, 1815; the said certificate and the signature, T. O. Stewart, clerk, A. M.,' is the handwriting of the Rev. Thomas Orpen Stewart, since deceased, who performed said marriage ceremony, on said day, between me and Elizabeth King, otherwise Denny, spinster, my present wife. The said Thomas Orpen Stewart was a beneficed clergyman of the established church, and at that time officiated as one of the curates in the parish church of St. George's, Douglas, in the Isle of Man. The said marriage took place at my residence, at Leece Lodge, near Douglas, in the forenoon of said day. Captain John Edwards, formerly of the regiment called the Ancient Britons, was present at and witnessed said marriage. He died in about four or five years afterwards; his name is subscribed as a witness to said marriage certificate, and in his proper handwriting; the signatures John Piers and Elizabeth Piers thereto, are the proper handwritings of me and my said wife; the said Thomas Orpen Stewart informed * me and my said wife, at said time, that said marriage was *337 perfectly valid, which from my own knowledge I believe 1 Piers v. Tuite, 1 Drury & Walsh, 298. |