clue and Bathurst the sentence of a ecclesiastical court in matrimonial cause  be evidence against three person see Mendez v villan real post stram S c try  at the sit at Westminster after this term the plaintiff bring a action on the  case against the defendant for seduce his wife and live in adultery with her a  sentence give in the consistory court of London be produce in evidence wherein  it be adjudge on a suit for jactitation of marriage that Margaret golden who  the plaintiff now set forth to be his wife be never marry to he the word of  the sentence be as far as appear to the court they be not marry dr lee from  the Commons for the defendant that this be the form of all sentence on a  jactitation of marriage where it be adjudge that it be no marriage and as it  be a negative sentence no other word can be use it be a sentence give in a  principal cause the point in issue be marriage or no marriage and likewise  this court be oblige to take notice of it and be bind by it coke bunting case  the case of Millicent and Millicent a woman case tempt Hardwicke pretend to be  Millisents wife whereupon he sue her for jactitation of marriage and it be  adjudge to be no marriage the woman afterward in the court of delegate pretend  to be Millisents widow and offer to prove her marriage but the commonlaw judge  that be in that commission be of opinion that she can not be admit to prove it  since there remain in force a sentence in bar against her indeed in the case  now before the court there be a appeal enter but that be mere matter of form  and always do by cautious proctor to save to their client the time of appeal  the counsel for the plaintiff reply that this sentence be give after issue be  join in this action in the commonlaw court and the matter ready for trial that  the sentence be in a suit only for jactitation of marriage and only impose  silence upon the party that be that he shall no more talk of his marriage that  a appeal be enter which put the sentence in suspense the court be of opinion  that it be no objection that this sentence be give after issue join at  commonlaw since it be not the act of the party to put a end to the suit at the  commonlaw but a proper declaration and determination of a court before who the  matter be cognisable case tempt Hardwicke er p where it be incidently judge  that the party be not marry and upon that administration be deny the court  declare their opinion that it can not be give in evidence in the court of  commonlaw but where sentence be give in a principal cause it be otherwise that  what the plaintiff call a appeal and be read in court be only a protoco of a  appeal and all that it can show be mere a intention to appeal and not the act  of appeal itself the instrument not be full that though this be a suit for  jactitation of marriage that be not a suit for word but in order to try the  right of that marriage and be the only suit by which the right can be try the  plaintiff be nonsuit see I salk Carth also Kenns case   dam Costa v villan  real Str and note Nolans edit duchess of kingston case Ambl but where the  sentence mention in this case be offer as conclusive evidence against the  charge of bigamy the house of lord hold it be not so first because the king be  no party to the first suit nor can become so and second because the  ecclesiastical court have no judicial cognizance of crime saint Tr but to be  conclusive the matter of it must be determine ex director see Str cite above  together with the note and in Prudham Philips cite Ambl and several time in  the duchess of kingston case it be hold that sentence in the ecclesiastical  court annul a marriage may be avoid by three person on account of fraud and  collusion in the party though the party themselves be estopped from show their  own fraud it may further be observe that although a stranger be not at liberty  to show that the court in pronounce such sentence be mistake yet that it may  be show to have be mislead see Ves also saint Tr also peak Ev