JEWISH NULLITY CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 23, 27 January 1900, Page 5 (Supplement)

JEWISH NULLITY CASE.

A .STRANGE CASE

Mr Justice Barnes and a special jury were engaged in the London Divorce Court during the second week of December with the case of "Szapira, otherwise Leiberman, v. Szapira," the Queen's Proctor showing cause.

Mrs Miriam Szapira, otherwise Leiberman, obtained in January last a decree nisi for the nullity of marriage with Solomon Szapira on the ground that she did not appreciate that she was in fact beingmarried, and never in fact consented to any marriage between herself and the respondent. The Queen's Proctor now intervened to prevent the decree nisi being made absolute, alleging that material facts had been withheld from the knowledge of the Court.

The first witness called was Solomon Szapira, the respondent, who, in examination by Mr Gill, said that on the day preceding the marriage they were all sitting together when two police officers came in. Addressing the witness, they said: "Come along, Maurice;" but the witness replied, "I am not Maurice. I am engaged to be married to this lady tomorrow." He could not say why Mrs Leiberman did not go to the marriage. There was nc mystery about the wedding. When he was served with the petition in South Africa, he had no means to defend the suit, and therefore took no action.

Ac the request of counsel the evidence of Drf. Taylor and White, of Nottingham, was interposed on behalf of the petitioner. They stated that in their opinion marital relations had never existed.

The mother of the respondent was then called, and gave evidence in support of tho Queen's Proctor's case.

Jerome Caminda, formerly chief detective inspector at Manchester, now retired, said on February 3, 1594, he went to the house of the mother of the petitioner at Nottingham. He was seeking Maurice Leiberman. He used the word "Maurice-* to Mr Szapira, who said he was not Maurice, and that he was to be married the fcllpwing day to the young lady (the petitioner), Who was standing by.

Corroborative evidence was given. It was stated that the charge against Maurice Leiberman was subsequently withdrawn.

William McDonald, in the Nottingham police force, said that in the early part of IS9I he had seen the respondent walking with the petitioner. He spoke to them, and said they were merry. Mr Szapira said they would not be long before they were married. In May, 1594, he had a

conversation with the petitioner, who asked him if he had seen anything of her husband, who had run away.

Elizabeth Harndon said she remembered being introduced to the petitioner at the" shop of Mrs Szapira, at Boston, when the marriage was contemplated. Mr Solomon Szapira introduced her as his future wife. The petitioner showed witness the engagement ring which she wore on her finger, and spoke about her wedding dress, stating that it was to be of white silk trimmed with swansdown. Witness gave the respondent a wedding present.

Mrs Mary Masters, formerly a. dressmaker at Nottingham, said that she remembered Miriam Leiberman ordering three or four dresses for her wedding. Witness asked if Miriam Leiberman would give her a pass for the workgirls to see the ceremony, and she promised that she would.

In cross-examination, witness said she, had kept books, but they were burnt last August, prior to her being seen about the case. The dresses she supplied were not of-the kind worn at a marriage at a registry office. The wedding dress had a train which hung from the shoulders.

Replying to his Lordship, Mr Robson said that it was not denied that a mai-ri-age was contemplated at the synagogue.

Mr Gill said his case was that there was a conspiracy to deceive the Court.

His Lordship: Is it or is it not admitted that the evidence of the last witness was correct about the ordering of the wedding

dress?

Mr Robson said his client would tell them, that she ordered a muslin dress'for the registry office ceremony. As to the other dresses, they were ordered in contemplation of the synagogue marriage; but whether she consented to a synagogue marriage was another matter. There was also the issue whether there was cohabitation after the marriage, and that was a vital element in the case.

I-lis Lordship pointed out that at the. former trial Mrs Leiberman's evidence was that nothing was said about marriage at all.

Mr Robson said the shorthand notes showed that the respondent told the petitioner that the ceremony was only to be registered according to the English law, that nothing was said about marriage, and that at the time she only thought she was betrothed.

His Lordship said that marriage, apart from the betrothal, was never mentioned at the former trial, but now it appeared that the wedding dress was ordered.

A number of witnesses were called to prpve that the petitioner and the respondent after the ceremony at the registry office had been seen together' at Boston and other places, and that he had introduced her as his wife, one witness saying the petitioner had a wedding ring on her finger. "

His Lordship: Is it seriously going to be disputed, the evidence of all these witnesses? . i

Mr Robson: I am instructed by my client to put forward her story. Any intimation from your Lordship i s well considered by me, but my client has made up her mind on the subject, and she. must tell her story. .*

At the close of- the case for the Queen's Proctor the further hearing of the case was adjourned over Monday!

THF, CASE FOR THE PETITIONER.

Mr Robson, in his opening statement for the petitioner, said the case he intended to establish was that there was an engagement, and that she understood the ceremony at the registry was simply a betrothal preliminary to the synagogue marriage. He asked the Court to reject entirely the evidence of the respondent, who, now that he was brought over to this country at the expense of the Queen's Proctor, did not hesitate to come and blacken the character of the young woman who, on his own showing, he had deserted and grievously wronged. It was remarkable that there was not a single person who could be brought forward to corroborate his story with regard to their living together.

Miriam Leiberman, the petitioner, was called and examined by Mr Groser. She said she was now living with her mother at 7, Melville-street, Nottingham. She was ,21 years of age in July last, and was a member of the Jewish community. In 1893 and 1594 she was living with her mother in Finbell-street, and with her mother had a stand in the Nottingham and neighbouring markets, the witness and her mother between.them earning about 23/ per week. Their house was a small one: and her two brothers, Abraham and Maurice, slept out because they had not sleeping accommodation. She remembered her brother Maurice bringing Solomon Szapira to the house. At that time the witness knew his mother, who had been to Nottingham to consult an oculist. He asked her to become engaged to him, and

I she" promised to think about it, and after-- ■ wards she agreed to become engaged, but no engagement ring was given her. 'Marriage was not talked about,, .and* no > <iate was fixf-'d for it. The understanding was that it would take place in-the synagogue, for, being a strict Jewess,-, that.'was; the only ceremony of marriage, she recognised and knew of. She did not know what happened at the registry office, for She did not remember. They stayed but a very short, time, and when they cam,-, out she found she had a ring in her hand. She asked Mrs Silverton what it meant, and she said she would ask Szapira. The respondent was asked about it when he came out of the office, and he said it was nothing at all, and the ring was thrown away. The witness further stated that they had never lived together as man

and wife,

Cross-examined: She knew nothing whatever about the £100 cheque, and Szapira had never given, her anything more valuable than a box of chocolates. (Laughter.) Marriage was never spoken of between them.

Mr Gill: It would have been very inconvenient to have been married just then, your brother having just gone, to Germany.—Witness: It would have been inconvenient for me to have married Solomon Szapira at any time. (Laughter.)-

Cross-examination continued:: She did not have a marriage certificate, but signed the registry, believing it to be the registration of the engagement. The ring, which was a, brass one, was thrown away. She was sure it was a brass one, for Solomon Szapira would never have thrown a gold one away. (Laughter.)

On Wednesday, Mrs Miriam Lelbermah, petitioner's mother, said she remembered putting her mark to the registry office notice, but that was not with a.view-to a marriage taking place there. She was a strict Jewess, and recognised no marriage except one performed in the synagogue. Solomon Szapira came to her house on Sunday, February 4, and went -with her daughter to the registry; and witness, understood that it was merely registration, which a neighbour had told her was good for three months. Her daughter told her that she had been persuaded to go to the registry office, and witness thereupon told her that it was binding for only three months. She did not see Solomon Szapira that day or after. He did not have breakfast in her house that day, and had never sle^pt in the house.

His Lordship: What is the undercurrent in this case? Why did Szapira go away if he was so anxious for the marriage?— Witness said she did not know his-reason. ■

Mrs Silverston, aunt of the petitioner, said she was asked by Solomon Szapira to go to the registry office. It was her firm impression that it was to be merely a registration. She herself was married at the synagogue: but had to go to the registry office for the purpose of registration first, and this she thought was the same thing. She did not know that a marriage} had taken place, and did not pay particular attention to the ceremony.

Mr Silverston gave similar evidence.

A large number of witnesses were then called, and gave evidence to the effect that they saw the petitioner frequently between February and May (the period respondent said they lived together), biit never on any occasion saw Solomon Szapira. They had never seen the petitioner wearing a ring, and never heard that she was married.

On Thursday the evidence wa? concluded, and his Lordship said he .proposed to leave three questions to the'-jury, viz.:— Was the petitioner betrothed at Boston before Christmas, 1593?. Did she know .that she was being married and consent thereto? Did she and respondent cohabit together as man and wife?

The jury found for the petitioner.

His Lordship' dismissed the Queen's Proctor's intervention, and reserved the

question of costs,