A STRANGE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12740, 17 December 1904, Page 2 (Supplement)

A STRANGE CASE.

RETIRED ARMY OFFICER'S MARRIAGE ENTANGLEMENTS.

Iv the Court of Session, Edinburgh, Lord Kinoairncy, had before him two actions, at the instance respectively of Mrs. Jane Macdonald or Park in Plewknds Terrace,, Edinburgh, against Reginald Hope Parkin-' or Elliot or Parkinson, Lynedoeh House, Edinburgh, against Reginald Hope Parkinson, sometime major of the Highland Light Infantry, now retired, living in . Walkerstreet, Edinburgh, for declarator of marriage. Mr. Hunter, for Mrs. Elliot or Parkinson, «aid he had put in a minute on behalf of his client asking to be sisted'in the action of Mrs. Maedonald or Parkinson. His friend bad persisted that Mrs. Macdonald or Parkinson should be sifted as a party in the action by Mrs. Elliot «r Parkinson."and it was right that the latter should be made a party to the action by the former. Mr.' D. Anderson, for Mis. Macdonald or Parkinson, said he was in his lordship's hands as to whether Mrs. Elliot t.r Parkinsou had a right to be made a party to his client's action. Mr. Hunter's client alleged a marriage in May. 1904. His own client alleged a marriage in August, 1903. It was' necessary that his client' should be sfsbnl in Mrs. Elliot or Parkinson's action, because a decree in he> action necessarily meant that his client could not succeed in her action. But the necessity for Mr. Hunter's client to be aistect was a question ; he had no interest to be sisted, because the only persons.involvedwere the husband anr 1 wife. Mrs. Elliot or Parkinson could have no interest in whether a subsequent marriage with the person .she alleges tc be her husband was sought to be declared.

Mr. Hunter said that in point of fact Mrs. Elliot or Parkinson wad married in facie eeclesia? to Major Parkinson as well as by the irregular marriage, and the date of the religious 'marriage was subsequent to the date of the alleged marriage to Mrs. Macdonald or Parkinson. . Lord Kincairney: You got married'a second time, did you? Mr. Hunter: &l»e was married in church there was a religious ceremony as well as the civil service, just as in foreign countries. Mr. Anderson : My friend alleges only one marriage, the civil ceremony, the religious ceremony which took place after,my client's marriage being only, in my friend's client's view, a completion of the marriage already contracted in May. Mr. Hunter: They don't, declare a marriage that 'takes place in church, but that marriage i- a very good reason why my client should appear in the action by" Mrs. Macdonald or Parkinson, and plead tbe'marriage in church. Mr. Anderson : He does not plead it; he only asks that pursuer and defender, having accepted each other on May 18, 1904, decree should be- granted. No doubt be dives say that on. September 2, 1904, a- religious ceremony took place, hut that is only a ceremony of marriage which, according to the views of the parties, was to complete the marriage which took place in May. My friend does not found upon, it as a separate marriage which took place on September 2. _ Lord Kincairney: I think that, following the former case, I must grant Mr. Hunter's order.