Brent Loses Marital Suit Marriage With Jocelyn Howarth

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20863, 20 October 1937, Page 14

Brent Loses Marital Suit Marriage With Jocelyn Howarth

particular interest to readers of this pagd will be the particulars of the recent lawsuit in Los Angeles in which the actor George Brent attempted unsuccessfully to obtain an annulment of his Mexican marriage with Jocelyn Howarth. Before her departure for America to take up film work Miss Howarth, who is an Australian, often posed for the fashions that have appeared regularly on this page.

In refusing Brent’s suit Judge Haas said: “I decided that the marriage was valid because the plaintiff admitted that he suggested it should be performed at Tia Juana, and also asserted that such

a marriage would be good and effective.”

Brent’s attorney said that he would probably appeal. Joy Howarth’s mother said that her daughter had made no plans for seeking a divorce. Neither Brent nor Joy herself commented. “After considering all the evidence,” said the judge, “I have decided that all the matters complained of were nonessential. The evidence showed that the couple lived as husband and wife, and informed the world of the fact. “The parties complied with the requirements of the Mexican law of domi-

cile. The fact that they were at Tia Juana at the time was sufficient. “Whether the doctor who signed the certificate that the parties were free from contagious diseases actually examined them is immaterial.” The judge added that he had submitted his decision beforehand to two other judges handling • annulment cases, and both had concurred in it. Basic points in the case for annulment of the marriage put forward by George Brent, which were vigorously and successfully contested by Joy Howarth were:— 1. That the marriage was invalid because Joy was not acquainted with the two witnesses to the marriage, as required by Mexican law. 2. That the requirements that both parties must present certificates of medi-

the matching coat. cal fitness and submit proof if either had been divorced had not been complied with. 3. That Joy Howarth had pressed Brent to elope and marry her. 4. That the Mexican law governing domicile was not complied with, and that no papers had been produced proving Brent’s divorce from Ruth Chatterton, th- film actress. 5. That the law had been flouted again in that it stipulates that one or both of the parties must live in Mexico or intend to remain there. “Pressure” Refuted. Joy Howarth and her counsel fought the case with tenacity because she realised that if the annulment were granted the implication would be that she and Brent had lived for a month as man and wife when, actually, she had implicit faith in the legality and binding quality of the marriage. She particularly resented Brent’s charge that she had exerted pressure on him to marry her. She declared to the Court that she did not see where pressure operated when a man repeatedly proposed and the woman finally accepted him. If Jocelyn Howarth now sues Brent for divorce, the Community Property Law of California will come into the case. Under this law the judge in divorce declares whether a couple must pool their assets. This is indicated in the judge’s decision.