REPORTS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS, AT Doctors' Commons; AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES. BY JOHN HAGGARD, LL.D. VOL. I. CONTAINING CASES FROM MICHAELMAS TERM, 1827, TO REPORTS OF CASES ARGUED 'AND DETERMINED IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. ARCHES COURT OF CANTERBURY. The COUNTESS OF PORTSMOUTH v. The EARL OF PORTSMOUTH, by his Committee.-p. 1. (On the Extension of the Term Probatory.) If due diligence has been used, the Court will grant an extension of the term probatory, in order that material witnesses may be examined. THIS was, originally, a suit of nullity of marriage instituted in the Consistory Court of London, on the part of the Earl of Portsmouth, acting by his Committee; and, in an early stage of the proceedings, came up, by appeal, to the Court of Arches, where, on the third session of Hilary Term, 1827, it was retained. On the third session of Trinity Term, an allegation, on behalf of Lady Portsmouth, which consisted of thirty-one articles (besides the concluding article,) with five and thirty exhibits, was admitted without opposition. On the first session of the present term, the answers to this allegation were brought in; and, on the same day, Jenner, as Counsel for Lady Portsmouth (after reading the affidavit of the Proctor, as to his inability, during the long vacation, to examine all the witnesses upon his allegation, on account of their great number, and the absence of many of them from London,) applied for an extension of the term probatory; and the Court then ordered "the assignation to prove" to be continued; but directed that an affidavit should be exhibited, stating the names of those witnesses whom it was proposed to examine, and further, that they were material witnesses. In compliance with this order, Lady Portsmouth had made an affidavit, which set forth, "that notwithstanding the utmost diligence and activity had been used by her Proctor, there still remained several important witnesses [stating some names and addresses] who were likely to be able to depose to the capacity of the said Earl of Portsmouth, and that material evidence might be expected from them." When this affidavit had been read, Lushington, on the part of Lord Portsmouth, said—that the affidavit did not apparently, contain an enumeration of all the witnesses whom it was intended to produce: however, he would not object to the sufficiency of the affidavit, nor to the extension of the term probatory, on a clear understanding that the names and descriptions of any further witnesses, proposed to be examined, should be communicated in a day or two. To this arrangement Lady Portsmouth's Counsel acceded. Per Curiam. THE COURT is extremely anxious not to preclude Lady Portsmouth from an examination of the witnesses she may think of importance to her cause. The circumstances of the case are very special; and it is quite proper that the party should have a full opportunity of defending the legality of her marriage. As the proposal of Lord Portsmouth's Counsel has been acquiesced in, the Court will grant an extension of the term probatory till the first of January, 1828; but it must expect that the defence will be conducted with due diligence. In reference to this and similar applications, arising upon the Orders of Court issued on the first session of Easter Term, 1827, the Court observed, that the consent of the adverse Proctor would not alone be sufficient to induce the Judge to continue a term probatory as matter of course, though it would have great weight with him as showing "reasonable cause;" but the circumstances must be stated to the Court for its approbation, and this for the sake of the suitor, lest too much facility of accommodation should be given. This regulation would also, practically, be found convenient to the Proctors, as a justification for declining to accede, without strong grounds, to a postponement. The Court took this opportunity of reading certain Orders passed in 1684; and, after stating their history, pointed out the strictness with which the expediting of causes was enforced. NORRIS v. HEMINGWAY.-p. 4. On Motion. Payment of a legacy decreed to a married woman, "whose receipt was to be a discharge to the executor, notwithstanding coverture;" her husband (a bankrupt) and his provisional assignee being first cited. JAMES ELLIOTT, by his last will and testament duly executed in writing, among other legacies, bequeathed the sum of 100l. to Sarah, wife of Thomas Norris; and directed "that the receipts of the several female legatees should be a sufficient discharge notwithstanding any present or future coverture." On the 31st of August, 1826, probate of this will was granted by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury to John Hemingway, the sole executor; and, on the 14th of September, 1825, a citation issued under seal of this Court-the Court of Arches, at the suit of the said Sarah Norris, calling upon the executor to answer to her in a cause of subtraction of legacy. To this citation a Proctor appeared, and alleged, on the part of the executor, that Thomas Norris, the husband, had, since the death of the testator, assigned his estate and effects to a provisional assignee, appointed by the Court for the relief of Insolvent debtors, and to whom, as he (the executor) was advised, the interest in the said legacy had passed. The Proctor then brought into the registry of this Court, 907., as the |