
    Borradaile vs. Borradaile.
    In a suit for a nullity of marriage on account of another wife living, the affidavit of regularity of the proceedings is the only affidavit necessary: the explanation as to cohabitation, connivance or time, mentioned in the 165th rule, does not apply.
    
      July 5, 1831.
    The bill in this case was filed to annul the marriage, on account of the defendant’s having a former wife living. It had been taken pro confessa; and in moving for a reference under the 164th rule, Mr. D. B. Ogden merely read an affidavit of the regularity of the proceedings.
   This was understood to be sufficient; and the Vice-Chan-cellar was of opinion there was no necessity, in a case of this kind, for any of the affidavits mentioned in the 165th rule, (i. e. as to cohabitation, connivance at adultery or time.)  