A LONDON SOCIAL SCANDAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7824, 18 December 1886, Page 2 (Supplement)

A LONDON SOCIAL SCANDAL.

EXTRAORDINARY REVELATIONS IN THE SEBRIGHT DIVORCE SUIT. London, November 12.—The Sebright divorce case was brought up for preliminary hearing to-day. The action is brought by Mrs. Arthur Sebright, who asked to have her marriage declared void on the grounds that I she was induced to consent to have the ceremony performed through fear, and that the marriage had never been consummated. The plaintiff is a daughter of Lady Scott, of Southampton, and noted for beauty, and the defendant is a well-known London club man. The plaintiff's friends assert that the defendant, coveting her private fortune of £40,000, managed to inveigle her into financial transactions, which finally fell upon her for settlement at a time when ehe had to choose between refusing to pay and be compromised, or escaping by marrying the defendant, and permitting him to liquidate. THE PETITIONER'S CASK. At the hearing to-day Mrs. Sebright's counsel admitted the marriage, which, ho said, was performed at the registrar's last January. Hβ contended, howevor, that no marital relation had ever taken place; that the parties had never lived together, and that there had been no impropriety in the financial action which caused their marriage. Mr. Sebright had induced the prisoner to accept certain bills, and she had been led to bolieve that a marriage ceremony between her and the respondent would relieve her of the financial liability incurred. The judge said he thought that, under these circumstances, it would be impossible to nullify the marriage, and announced that he would bear testimony with a view to dooiding if there wae sufficient reason to grant a divorce

Mrs. Sebright was called to the witness stand and sworn. She testified that through her father she had inherited in her own name £26,000 in addition to a reversion of £30,000 on the death of her mother. She had met Mr. Sebright when she was but fifteen years of ago, and tho acquaintance had been continuous. He proposed marriage to her alter they had been acquainted a short time only, but her mother declined to permit an engagement. Mr. Sebright continued his vieits to the house, however, »nd was received on terms on friendship, Finally Mr. Sebright induced witness to engage horsolf to him in marriage unknown to her mother. THE FOHOKD MARUMCiE. After this he persuaded her from time to time to sign " bits of paper" which ho.supplied. Eventually witness asceit.unod that she had appended her name to notes and bills, and had made herself liable for sums amounting to £3325, Writ* were served in actions for tlu.se amounts. She then appealed to Sebright, lie said the only way in which ehe could save herself from ruin was by marrying him. This, witness said, ehe refused to di. Mr. Sebright next requested witness to meet him alone. She aid so. Hβ took her to a place unknown to her, but which she learned was the registry office. f-he wished to leave the room tho moment ahe jknow where she was. Count Balharney, a friend of Sebright's, who was preaent, blocked the door, and Sebright said to her that ha would shoot her if she dared to show that she was not acting with free will in the marriage which he was about to have performed between them. He then forced a ring on her finger, and witness threw it off, and again tried to leave the room. Sebright seized her by tho arm, and forced her back, and made her sign the registry. Witness said she did not hear the registrar read the form of marriage nor hear him say anything. "I was too upset and too dreadfully frightened," she declared, M to hear anything at the time."

The registrar, being sworn, deposed that when Mrs. Sebright was before him she was agitated, but that she repeated the marriage declarations without any hesitation, and also the marriage form when Sebright took her hand. Witness added that subsequently the lady threw the marriage ring on the "floor, but signed the registry without hesitation or demurring. Lady boott, Mrs. Sebright'e mother, and two doctors testified that the petitioner was completely broken down, mcuttlly and physically, after the ceremony, and was always tremulous and crying, and in constaut terror. At this stage of the proceedings the Court adjourned. Throughout the day the Court was crowded with representatives of society and fashion.