A Matrimonial Muddle.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 290, 14 December 1901, Page 3

A Matrimonial Muddle.

(A vkry queer tale of matrimonial complications was told in the London Divorce Court some weeks ago, when Mrs Annie Gurney petitioned for release from the bond holding her to Itichard Malcolm Gurney, a Calcutta Merchant. In opening the case the petitioner's counsel said the parties were married at Tottenham in 1877, but that marriage had never been consummated. The parties had lirst met in church at Forest Hill. Petitioner was then a girl of about 16. and the respondent a youth of some 'M years. The acquaintance ripened into affection, and Mr Gurney was very anxious to be engaged. Mr Jinman, the young lady’s father, appeared to have no objection; but her mother thought her daughter might malic a better alliance. Eventually the young people formed the idea of being married in secret, and to get a special license Mr Gurney had to make certain declarations as to consents. He took the license, and the petitioner and ho went to the church at eight o’clock one morning and were married. Probably at the church door it came to the lady’s knowledge that statements which were entirely false had been made; and the result was that they separated and went to their respective homes. For a lung period they saw each other very seldom. Mr Gurney appeared to havo acted in an extremely honourable manner, the girl believing that she had not been legally married, and he not insisting on any rights he might have. According to entries in a diary he kept, he hoped for a time the uncomfortable position would bo put an end to, and be should be in a position, to claim his wife. Matters rested until petitioner received a deathbed message from a school friend.

begging her to have the question of the marriage settled. It appeared that the petitioner consulted a legal agency, who informed her that the marriage was not void but voidable. The head of the agency introduced her to a well known solicitor, who commenced proceedings on her behalf for a nullity. Subsequently petitioner recoived a telegram from some one she did not know, who stated “ Case successful.” On that sho believed she was a free woman. Meanwhile, a Mr Wilson, a man of good position, had been aspiring to her hand. Apparently all parties thought she was free, and sho was married to Mr Wilson on December 3rd, 1879. For several years Mr Wilson and his wife lived together, and there were several children. In 1894, petitioner’s father, who had held a high position in the shipping world, died, and on his death it was found that owing to unfortunate speculations, he had lost nearly all his wealth. After her father’s death, Mr Wilson appeared to have doubts respecting his own marriage, and he took proceedings and got a decree of nullity. Mr Gurney had meanwhile gone to India, and sharing the belief that there was no marriage existing between himself and the petitioner, he married a lady of position in India. Petitioner, who pleadod lack of means as an excuse for the delay in bringing her petition to court, gave evidence, and the judge ordered the case to stand over for the consideration by counsel of certain documents.