[239] Canon 62; (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 21; Priestley v. Lamb (1801) 6 Ves. 421; Nicholson v. Squire (1809) 16 Ves. 259; Warter v. Yorke (1815) 19 Ves. 451; Wynn v. Davies (1835) 1 Curt. 69, at pp. 83, 84.
[240] (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 2; (1837) 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 22, s. 34; (1860) 23 & 24 Vict. c. 24.
[241] (1886) 49 & 50 Vict. c. 3.
[242] (1899) 62 & 63 Vict. c. 27 .
[243] Macdougall v. Paterson (1851) 11 C. B. 755; 21 L. J. C. P. 27; Att.-Gen. v. McLean (1863) 1 H. & C. 750; Alexander v. Jones (1866) L. R. 1 Ex. 133; 35 L. J. Ex. 78.
[244] Tongue v. Allen (1835) 1 Curt. 38; (1836) 1 Moo. P. C. 90; Midgley v. Wood (1860) 30 L. J. P. M. & A. 57; R. v. Billingshurst (1814) 3 M. & S. 250. Where the woman was an illegitimate child, and had the banns published in the name of her mother, which she had never in fact borne, Sir John Dodson, in adjudging the marriage void, said that he had some doubt whether, in the case of an illegitimate child, the publication of the banns in the name of its mother, instead of the name of notoriety and repute, would necessarily be such an undue publication as would nullify the marriage. No doubt the name which a person under such circumstances had fully acquired was that in which the publication of banns should take place; but there might be a case in which, without fraudulent intent, and from an innocent misapprehension of what was correct, the name of the mother might be used instead of that subsequently acquired; Tooth v. Barrow (1854) 1 Eccl. & Adm. 371, at p. 374.
[245] Mayhew v. Mayhew (1812) 3 M. & S. 266.
[246] (1823) 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 6.
[247] Ib. s. 8.
[248] (1836) 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, ss. 1, 11, 15, 16; (1837) 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 22, s. 36; (1856) 19 & 20 Vict. c. 119, s. 11.