The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-01-24 00:00:00

SIMONIN (FALSELY CALLED MALAC) r. MALAC.

This was s petition by Valerie Josephine Willie'mine
Shill-4111R fur • deelarstion of the nullity of her marriage
with Ikon Malec. The petitioner described herself as
of Kingston, in Surrey, and alleged a de facto marriage
between herself and the respondent in June, 1854, at
the church of St. Martin's-in-the Fields ; that she and
the respondent were both French subjects domiciled in
France ; that the day after the marriage they returned
to France ; that the icarriage was never consummated ;
that it was in contravention of the laws of the Empire
of France regulating the marriage of French subjects
in foreign countries, and that on the let of December,
1854, tl.e Tribunal of First Instance of the department
of the Seine at Paris declared the pretended marriage
null and void. The respondent did not appear.
Dr. Philliinore, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey conducted the
petitioner's case.
Dr. Phillimore, in opening the case, stated that at
the time of the marriage Mademoiselle Simonin was 22
and M. Malac was 2i/ years of age. The lady in 1853
was an actress at the The are Fram:ais. She had been
respectably brought up and carefully e,lliested, and
lived with her mother at the Hue St. Ilonork. 31.
Malec made her acquaintance, 11141 soon afters ADIS 14D4-
110Sed to marry her, and she accepted him. He told her
that his family would disapprove the match, and gave
her other reasons for not marrying lier in France. He
suggests,' that they should Mille tar 1,3114011 to he mar-
ried, and she C4411/44411t i. They came over on the 2t/th of
June, IS2A, and a Frenchman, who called himself an
interpret, r, but who was unable tan tweak English, was
introduced to them. With this penion'ti assistance they
obtained *licence, Stelae having taken the necessary oath
as to residence under the Maniage Act (4th George IV.,
chap. 76), and were married the next day at St. Mar-
tin's-in-the-Fields. Mademoiselle Simonin, however
refused to cohabit with him as man and wife until
they had been married according to the French law. On
the 23rd or 24th they returned to Paris, and she went
back to liveswith her mother. She afterwards called on
him to fulfil his promise of marrying her in Paris, but
Ire refused. She then took proceedings before a French
tribunal to ascertain her at nun, and in default of the
appearance of Malec a decree was pronounced on the
Ist of December, 1851, in which after reciting that
by the 170th article of the Cmle Cirde, marriage be-
tween French sultjecta in • foreign country intuit be pre-
ceded by publication, that such a marriage was null
when the oiniasion of the prescribed formalities
took place with an intention to elude the law, and
that both parties had contracted the marriage with-
out having sought or obtained the consent of
their parents, the Court pnaiounced the marriage
null and void, ordered that mention of the
judgment should be made everywhere where re-
I quire& and condemned Malec ill the costs. %Me-
i inemielle Si ~,,, iiin continued at the The itre Francais for a
short tune after this judgment, but Make resorted to
vstrimitt means of annoying and distressing her, such as
throwing imagartelles and daggers at tier on the stage,
and rrtlreraismn diaturbing the theatre. Early in 1858 Alle
thought it better to leave France, and she assmrdingly
Caine to England with her tuother and sister. She had
resided here ever since, and intended to remain. This
suit was instituted in December, 1858, but great delay
had taken place in consequence of the difficulty of serv-
ing the respondent, and eventually personal service had
been effected upon 111111 at Naples. 'rile learned counsel
contended that their Lordships had jurisdiction upon
three grounds—find, because the supposed marriage was
celebrated in England ; seeoadly, because, the petitioner
was domiciled in England ; and, thirdly, because there
had been personal service upon the respondent. The
suppooed marriage was a civil and religious English con•
tract. He also contended that, although the Coed had
jurisdiction, yet, as the parties at the time of the mar-
riage were domiciled French subjects, their capacity to
enter into the contract of marriage must be governed by
the French law.
Dr. Swahey, on the same side, contended that the
respondent, having come to England to enter into the
contract, must be taken to have submitted himself to
the jurisdicton of the English tribunals in regard to
that contract.
Made ttttt iselle Simonin will then called and examined
through an interpreter. Sire said,—ln 18531 resided at
Paris with my mother. My father had been dead two
years. I became acquainted with M. Malec. He pro-
posed marriage to me. That marriage was not
celebrated in France. He gays me reasons for not
having it celebrated in Femme, In Julie, 1854, be
proposed that we should come to England and be
married here. His reason for the proposal was that
when the marriege was • fait accompli his parents
would be more ready to give their consent. He also
said ho did not wish to leave iris until I was his fiancee.
arid lie thought that if we were married in England I
should not be able to marry another person while he was
absent in his own part of the country. We left Paris
together without my mother's knowledge. We came to
an hotel near Leicester-square the day before the mar-
riage. After our arrival we sought for lodgings, and in-
quired for an interpreter. The interpreter went for the
licence, and we both accompanied him. The next day
we were married. We did not remain in Loudon. We
left either on the same day or on the next. I did not
understand the ceremony at all, nor did I understand
the business of the licence. I only knew that it was •
marriage ceremony. I did not live with Malec as his
wife. When we returned to Paris I went back to my
mother. At the hotel Malac acid in another part of the
building. I asked Malec several times to marry ine in
France. He said he would go to his own pays, Lerac,
in the departuient of Lut-et4laroutime, and ask the
consent of his father. He only etaid a short time in
Paris. He wrote several letters to use. On the 21st uf
September he wrote this letter from Calenui. (The
following translation of the letter was read) :
" For more than a year that I have loved you, my
love and incertitude struggle in my heart. I promised
you that I would marry you ',wording to the French
law, and I bad such intention, but always at the moment
when toy resolution was to become action a moral
obstacle placed itself betweea us—childish, lierhaps,
but which my susceptibility had not and has no

the courage to accept. There has not been on my part
any conduct premeditated. The position which I made
for myself with me family and our marriage in England,
are more than sufficient proofs of it. This is my ram-
lution—l will not marry you before the French law. If
the tie which unites us is sacred enough to overcome the
scruples of your honour I shall be happy to give you my
life. I will not seek excuses to justify myself. I have
broken my word.
" Love. Rrspect. "LEON lIALAC."

In consequence of this letter I asked a lawyer whether
an English niarriage was good, and what ought to be
done. He said that until the marriage was declared
void it Was valid, and I instructed him to take the
necessary steps for obtaining& declaration. On the 20th
of May, 1857, I come to England with iny mother and
my sister. We have since lived at Kingston and at
Loudon. I follow the occupation of my father, that of
restoring and cleansing old books and ancient mann.
scripts. I intend to remain in England. I have no
property in ',rune.
To the Court.— I employ the solicitor in this suit. I
am to pay the expenses. Neither M. Malec nor any
relative of his has undertaken to assist we or to find
money for the suit. I have bad no communication with
Melee or his father, or any member of the family, or
the subject of the suit. My sister went to serve this
petition on Malec. She did not see him, but she Saw
his father. His fathsr asked my sister to let him know
the result of the suit when it was decided. He pro-
niiiied to do all he could to hand the petition to his son.
He said he could have nothing to do in the suit. He
Was not asked for money, and lie gave none.
The further hearing of the cause was adjourned until
Thursday.
THE LAW or Accriox.— The case of "Cleobarey V.
Tatters.ll," tried at the last Hertford Assises, and in
which • verdict was found for the plaintiff, who acted
as his own attorney, has just been concluded, defendanta
having paid the damages and costs. It is now there-
fore settled that a horse may be returned for not answer-
ing the description il2 the printed particulars of sale.
The ease of " Warlow v. Harrison," decided a few days
since in the Court of Error, front the Queen's Bench,
has decided that when horses are advertised to be sold
without reserve, the owner or his agent cannot buy
them in, but that the last bowl fide bidder is the pur-
chaser, and as such can maintain an action against the
au,tioneer for the specific chattel sold.
Poi.vciAsir.—A very curious trial for polygamy is
likely to attract the attention of the gentlemen of the
long rube at the next Lent Auises for Susses. A man
of no small consideration in Brighton contracted mar-
riage with five different women, three of whom an
sitters, and with all of whom lie has continued to co-
habit for nearly eight years in town. A disagreement
on wine points of precedence brought the disgraceful
affair to light. —Express.