In the matter of a Declaration of the Legitimacy of A. B., a minor. The Petition of A. B. of Sheweth The day of a minor by his next friend C. D. of 19 . 1. That your Petitioner is a natural-born subject of His Majesty King Edward VII. and is domiciled in England. 2. That in or about the year E. B. then a subject of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria left this country and took up his residence at X. in Y. 3. That in or about the year at X. the said E. B. was lawfully married to F. G. in accordance with the laws of Y. and they resided together continuously from that time until 4. That the said marriage took place by the natural and present consent of the said E. B. and the said F. G. but that there was no special ceremony form or manner of the making of the said marriage. 5. That subsequently to their said marriage the said E. B. and his said wife lived and cohabited together at various residences at X. and elsewhere as lawful husband and wife and during such time they owned and acknowledged each other to be husband and wife and had issue one child only videlicet your Petitioner born on the day of 6. That on or about the your Petitioner's said parents having taken up their permanent residence in England went through a ceremony of marriage in accordance with the rules and ceremonies of the Established Church of England at and that there was no issue subsequent to such marriage. The said F. G. died at 7. That the said E. B. died on death domiciled in England. on the day of at and was at the time of his Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that this Honourable Court will be pleased to order that His Majesty's Attorney-General and all other proper parties may be cited and thereafter to make a decree declaring :— 1. That the said E. B. and F. G. were lawfully married prior to the birth of your Petitioner. 2. That your Petitioner is the legitimate son of the said E. B. and F. G. 3. That your Petitioner is a natural-born subject of His Majesty the King. And that your Petitioner may have such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem meet. (Signed) A. B. Answer of the Attorney-General. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. (Divorce.) In the matter of the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858, and in the matter of the petition of A. B., a minor, by his next friend C. D. for a declaration of the legitimacy of the said A. B. A. B., a minor (by C. D. his next friend) and HIS MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL Petitioner, Respondent. The answer of Sir H. K., His Majesty's Attorney-General, to the petition of the above-named Petitioner. His Majesty's Attorney-General says: 1. He does not admit [the allegations in the Petition are put in issue]. The Attorney-General therefore prays the Court that it will be pleased to reject the prayer of the said Petition. Another Form. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. (Divorce.) To the Right Honourable the President of the said Division. The. day of In the matter of the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858, and In the matter of the Petition of A. B. for a declaration of the validity of 1. That your Petitioner is a natural-born subject of His Majesty King Edward VII. of Great Britain and Ireland and is domiciled in England. 2. That your Petitioner was on the day of lawfully married to C. B. a domiciled British subject then temporarily resident in X. at the Cathedral of Y. at Z. by P. Q. 3. That after the said marriage your Petitioner lived and cohabited with her said husband &c. 4. That there was issue of such marriage children as follows: 5. That from the time of the marriage of your said Petitioner with the said C. B. until the present time they have lived and have cohabited together as lawful husband and wife and have acknowledged each other to be husband and wife and were and are accounted to be lawful husband and wife amongst their neighbours, friends, acquaintances and others, and that such marriage was and is an open and notorious fact. 6-14. [Set out the previous marriage of the Petitioner to E. F. and her belief in the validity of her divorce from him and of her subsequent marriage.] 15. That your Petitioner has for years rested content and was willing now to rest content in the belief that her said marriage was a valid one, but she has been driven by the false allegations of the said E. F. to bring this proceeding for the purpose of getting a judicial determination by this Honourable Court that shall settle once for all the validity of the said marriage and the legitimacy of her said children. Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that your Lordship will be pleased to entertain this her application and allow her to prosecute the necessary proceedings, and thereupon to order that His Majesty's Attorney-General and all the proper parties may be cited, and thereafter will be pleased to hear and determine the same and to pronounce (on sufficient evidence being adduced by her on her behalf) that the said A. B. and C. B. were lawfully married on the day of And that your Petitioner may have such further or other relief in the premises as to your Lordship may seem meet. (Signed) A. B. NOTE. The Petition of which this is a copy will be filed on the expiration of one month from the date of delivery hereof to day of His Majesty's Attorney-General. In the matter of the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858, and In the matter of the Petition of A. B. for a declaration of the validity of her marriage. The Attorney-General and E. F. cited to see the proceedings. E. F. cited by order of the Court dated to see the proceedings by G. H. his Solicitor in answer to the Petition filed in this cause saith: 1-6. [Deal with the allegations in the Petition.] Wherefore the said E. F. humbly prays : That your Lordship will be pleased to reject the prayer of the said Reply of Petitioner to Answer of Party Cited. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. (Divorce.) The day of In the matter of the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858, and THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL and E. F. Petitioner, Respondents. The Petitioner A. B. by K. L. her solicitors in reply to the Answer filed herein by E. F. on the day of 1-2. [Traverse allegations in Answer.] saith: 3. That save as aforesaid she joins and takes issue upon the said Answer except in so far as the same amounts to admission. Wherefore the Petitioner prays as before, and further that the same E. F. be condemned in the costs of and incidental to these proceedings. PART V. Proceedings under the Vexatious Actions Act, 1896. Notice of Motion. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. of King's Bench Division. In the Matter of the Vexatious Actions Act, 1896, and In the Matter of A. B. Take notice that the Divisional Court will be moved on Tuesday the day 19 at the sitting of the Court or as soon thereafter as Counsel can be heard by the Attorney-General for an order that no legal proceedings shall be instituted by you in the High Court or in any other Court unless you obtain the leave of the High Court or some Judge thereof and satisfy the Court or Judge that such legal proceeding is not an abuse of the process of the Court and that there is primâ facie ground for such proceeding. BOOK VI. Points of Practice and Procedure. CHAPTER I. PLEADING. Pleading by and on behalf of the Crown. THERE is no doubt that the Crown can plead double or plead and demur, both to petitions of right and elsewhere. (Tobin v. R. (1863), 14 C. B. (N. S.) 505; 32 L. J. C. P. 216; see further, above, pp. 386, 388.) In that case Willes, J., refers to the precedent of a replication by the Attorney-General to a traverse of office, a striking instance of more than double pleading, which is printed in Manning, Exch. Pr. (ed. 2), App. D., p. 255. Tobin v. R. was followed in R. v. Diplock (1868), 19 L. T. 380, where several pleas were allowed the Crown, in a replication to a return to an information in the nature of a quo warranto. See also Chitty, Prerog. 369, as to the Crown's reply to traverses. Pleading in General Terms. 33 Hen. VIII. c. 39, s. 50 (p. 660), provides that in all actions and suits for the recovery of any debt due to the King it shall be sufficient in the law to show and allege generally the manner in which the debt is due to the King, without showing and declaring the particular circumstances. It was held in Tobin v. R. (1863), 14 C. B. (N. S.) 505; 32 L. J. C. P. 216, that the Crown could put in issue the whole of the allegations of a petition of right by a general traverse, though the Court suggested that it might interfere to prevent injustice or prejudice to the suppliant, if such was caused by 'the Crown's general plea. It probably could so interfere in the case of petition of right, to which Ord. XIX. r. 27 is applied by sect. 7 of the Petitions of Right Act, 1860, there not being any such prerogative of the Crown in this C.P. 00 |