AN EXTRAORDINARY APPICATION FOR A DIVORCE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3499, 23 September 1882, Page 4

AN EXTRAORDINARY APPICATION FOR A DIVORCE.

The case of May v. Morg, otherwise May, in which the husband sued for a decree of nullity of marriage, on the ground that the publication of the banns was informal and illegal, came on for hearing in the English Divorce Court recently. It appeared that the parties had become acquainted with each other while very young. They proposed to marry, but the parents on both sides objected to their doing so on the ground of their youth. The marriage was accordingly postponed ; but some four years after the young people resolved on carrying out the marriage clandestinely. They both agreed that it should be celebrated at some obscure church in London, in order to prevent, its getting publicity and reaching the ears of friends of the family. To aid in this being done, the petitioner called in the services of a friend ol' his, a Mr John Cox, who got tho banns published at Holy Trinity Church, Hoxton, and the parties were married at that church on the 16th of January, 1876. The petitioner's case was that whereas the respondent's name was Mary Elizabeth Long, the banns were published"in the name of Mary Eleanor Long ; that such was done with the lady's consent; and that the marriage was, in consequence, illegal. After the marriage the parties lived together until about August, 1879, when tho petitioner eloped with another young lady, with whom he went to Paris. He afterwards appeared to have placed that lady in the charge of respectable parties, and went to America. Two children had been born of the marriage, but only one of them survived, In 1880

fcho respondent instituted a suit in that court for a judicial separation, on the ground of her husband's adultery, and in that suit she obtained a decree in 18S1, the husband not having appeared in the case. The petitioner afterwards returned from America and instituted this suit of nullity. The petitioner, Philip James May, was called in support of his case. He stated the circumstances of the marriage, and in cross-exa-mination said lie wished his marriage to be dissolved in order that he might be released from supporting his wife and child. At the time of the marriage he had an income of £150; his income was now £450. He admitted having gone with another young lady to Paris, and he afterwards went to America. He bad placed that lady under the charge of respectable parties. Mr Inderwick, for the respondent, contended that there was no evidence whatever that the banns had been wrongful! v aad wilfully published by the respondent. She was in the habit of signing her name " Mary E. Long," and when at the registry she "said that her name was Elizabeth, but she was told that, as it was Eleanor in the banns, she had better sign it in that way on the register, and she did so. Besides this, he should prove that the lady was generally known as Mary, and there was not. a letter or scrap of paper that could be produced in which she signed herself as ' Elizabeth.' She was in the habit of signing ' Mary X' He had therefore to to submit that the lady had acted bona fide throughout the transaction, and that there was no evidence whatever to prove that she had conspired with the petitioner to have the banns wrongly published. He then called the respondent, Mary Elizabeth May. She stated that before the marriage her husband had on several occasions asked her to elope. She refused. The witness bore out the statement of her counsel. On the conclusion of the evidence, Sir James Hannen said it lay on the pelitioner to prove that both his wife and himself had conspired to have the marriage celebrated without due publication of banns. According to the statute, if both parties thus conspired the marriage was illegal. He could see nothing in the case to support the idea that the lady wilfully consented to the wrong publication of the banns. She was told by the man she married that everything had been done properly, and it would be a scandal if a young girl like this could be held as having consented to such undue publication. The jury at once found a verdict to the effect that the respondent had not connived knowingly and wilfully in the undue publication of banns. '1 his waa in effect a verdict for the respondent, Mrs May, on all tbe issues, the terms of this verdict, the learned judge dismissed the petition with costs. The verdict was received with applause from those in court.