This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1844 ...up her own marriage, and deposing to her own that also must be rejected. The allegation must be reformed by omitting the fourth and fifth articles, and by pleading in the regular form the proceedings had in the Consistorial Court. This allegation was afterwards reformed by supplying the passages (in italics) in the third and fifth articles, and by pleading two additional articles, the first of which was as That during the proceedings in the said Consistorial Court, and for some days subsequent to their termination, William Meddowcroft, the party deceased, and the said Mary Meddowcroft continued to cohabit together as husband and wife, when the latter suspecting, as she at that time declared, that the said William Meddowcroft did not intend to perform his promise of again marrying her, had recourse to professional advice as to the expediency of an appeal from the sentence of the said Consistorial Court; but, being informed that no fresh facts or other evidence could be introduced, and otherwise dissuaded therefrom, she returned to cohabitation with the said William Meddowcroft, in 1843. the hope, as she repeatedly declared, of being able February 13th. to induce him still to fulfil his promise of again mar MEDDowcrorr rying her, and that she continued to cohabit with Hugoenin. him until the birth of their child, the party in this cause. Second. Exhibited the several proceedings in the Consistorial Court of London in the cause of Meddowcroft v. Meddowcroft. Before this allegation was given in a3 reformed, the Court called the attention of the counsel in this cause to a case of Mellicent v. Fisher, coram Delegates, 1718. Prerogative, 1716--and supplied the parties with the following "Mellicentv. Fisher, Michaelmas, 1716, Delegates...