
    William Kenley against Catharine Kenley.
    A marriage had and the first husband being in full life, a second marriage of the woman is merely void, though her first husband has been absent eight or nine years.
    The following case was stated to the court, on a libel for a divorce from tlie bonds of matrimony.
    On the 2d November 1777, Catharine Lauer, the defendant, was married to William Cunnius, with whom she cohabited some time and had a son.
    Some years afterwards, William Cunnius removed to South Carolina, and now resides in Charleston. After his departure Catharine Cunnius married one Casper Iserloau, but it appeared be had another wife, and therefore this marriage was considered asvoid.
    
      After tbe marriage with Iserloau, Catharine Cunnius married the libellant. William Cunnius, (who is still living,) came to Philadelphia in 1796, and applied to counsel respecting his property in the possession of William Kenley, but shortly after returned again to Charlestown.
    Catharine Lauer, (Cunnius or Kenley,) has never been divorced from William Cunnius. He had been absent eight or nine years before the marriage of the said libellant and defendant, and the libellant was informed thereof, but both the parties believed and were advised that their marriage was lawful.
    Whether the last marriage was illegal, was now submitted to the court without argument, by Mr. Rawle for the libellant Mr. S. levy for the defendant.
    The court said, that though the circumstances attending this case might exempt the defendant from the pains of bigamy, yet her first husband being in full life, and their marriage not annulled by any competent jurisdiction, the marriage was ipso facto void and null.
     