458 FORNSHILL v. MURRAY.—1 BLAND.

forgery: and the fact of forgery may, when thus incidentally in-
volved, be determined and relief given, founded upon a criminal
fact, although it would be altogether improper for it directly to
decide upon any such question upon a criminal charge. Barnesly
v. Powel, 1 Ves. 120, 287; Stftce v. Mabbot, 2 Ves. 553; Duntze \.
Lerett, Fergusson's Eep. 63; Stark. EC. 4 pt. 931; Peake v. Highfield,
1 Suns. 560.

*It appears, that the first marriage of Mary with John
485 Lewis was legally had and solemnized in Ireland; hence,
according to the law of nations, it must be held to be a valid mar-
riage here; for otherwise the rights of mankind would, in this re-
spect, be in a most precarious and uncertain condition. Roach v.
Garran. 1 Ves. 159; Herbert v. Herbert. 3 Phill. 58; Duntze v.
Levett, Ferg. Rep. 63: Edmondstone v. Lockhart, Fery. Rep. 168;
Butler v. Forbes, Ferg. Hep. 209; Herbert v. Herbert, 2 Hag. Cons.
Rep. 263; Ending v. Smith, 2 Hug. Cons. Rep. 371. And conse-
quently the subsequent marriages of Mary in Maryland with
Davidson, and after his death with Fulton, while her husband
John Lewis was alive, must be considered as utterly void.

When a question of legitimacy becomes thus involved in a con-
troversy in a Court of Chancery, it is said to be usual to make «p
an issue, and have the matter tried by a jury who are the proper
Judges of fact. Revel v. Fox, 2 Ves. 270; Read v. Passar, I Esp.
Rep. 213. But it is not indispensably necessary, in any case, that
the Chancellor should have any fact determined by a jury. It
is only when he entertains a reasonable doubt as to the fact, and
when it depends on evidence the weight of which can be better
estimated by a jury, or where the testimony is very obscure and
contradictory, if he thinks fit that the Chancellor, for the informa-
mation of his own conscience, may have recourse to this auxilliary
mode of obtaining it. Short v. Lee, 2 Jac. & Walk. 496; Peake
v. Highfield, 1 Russ. 560. But in this case the proof is so clear and
demonstrative, that there is not the smallest room for a doubt
upon the subject; therefore I hold it to be my duty to pronounce
an immediate decree.

The proofs clearly establish the fact, that the late Mary, the
mother of the plaintiffs, had been, long previously to their birth,
legally married, and was then the lawful wife of a certain John
Lewis, who at the time of the marriage, and continually ever since,
has resided, and is now living in Ireland. And consequently these
plaintiffs, who were all born in Maryland many years after their
mother came to and resided in this State, are all of them illegiti-
mate; and, as such, they cannot take as her legal representatives,
or as the next of kin of the late Henry Somervell. The Act of
1825, ch. 156, has no retrospective operation, and therefore cannot
affect this case.

Whereupon it is decreed, that the bill of complaint be dismissed
with costs to be taxed by the register.