The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-11-20 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY NULLITY CASE,

PAINFUL COMPLICATIONS.

In the Divorce Division on Friday, Mr. Justice
Butt had before him the case of Sebright (otherwise
Scott) v. Sebright. The petition was thateof Miss
na Mary Scott (otherwise Mrs. Sebright) for a
declaration of nullity of marriage on the alleged
ground that her consent thereto was improperly
obtained. She is the daughter of Lady Lena Scott,
and the respondent is Mr. Arthur Edward Saunders
Sebright. The Attorney-General (Sir R. Webster,
Q.C.), Dr. Tristram, Q.C., and Mr. Rose-lanes, ap-
peared for the petitioner; and the Solicitor-General
(Sir E. Clarke, Q.C.), Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., and Mr.
Searle for the respondent.
The Attorney-General, in the course of his opening
statement, said the petitioner was the daughter of
Lady Scott, the widow of Sir Claude Scott, who died
in 1881. He left two daughters, the elder being the
1 petitioner. In 1878, when she was only 15, the
petitioner became aceuainted with Mr. Sebright. It
was quite possible that at times she had feelings of
friendship for him, and it was highly .probable Mr.
Sebright was attached to her. He proposed to her
when she was only 16. He represented to Lady
Scott that he was possessed of means, but she de-
clined to have her daughter engaged at that
time. Down to 1885 the parties saw one
another a good deal, and upon several occasions
he pressed her to become engaged. In the middle
of 1885 there was something which almost
amounted to an engagement. In that year Mr.
Sebright, who was in monetary diffisulties, got
Miss Scott to sign her name to a piece of paper. It
turned out afterwards that her name had been signed
to a bill of £5OO, which got into the hands of a man
named Williams, a money-lender. In the course of
that year Miss Scott, apparently out of friendship,
and partly because Mr. Sebright told her that it would
be of immense assistance to him, accepted for him
bills to the extent of upwards of £3OOO. Of that
money she had never had a single farthing. At the
end of the year the poor girl was served with writs of
all kinds. From time to time she saw Mr. Sebrigt.t
in the greatest state of anxiety and depression. Most
foolishly, she never told her mother, Lady Scott, of
these transactions. In the middle of 1885 she was
entitled to £26,000, absolutely, and to reversions of
other amounts. In 1885 she conveyed her property in
trust to Sir P. Rose and Col. Hand, both of whom oad
no knowledge of these bill transactions. She then saw
Mr. Guedella, and he gave her the best advice, v:z., to
tell her mother the whole matter, but unfortunately
she did not accept that advise, Having received
further writs, and after assurances of being relieved
from pressure of these proceedings she went through
the ceremony of marriage in question. Miss Lena
Mary Scott was then called, and was about to be
examined by Dr. Tristram, when Mr. Justice Butt
said, after hearing the opening statement, he did not
laink he had the power of taking on himself the re-
sponsibility (if declaring the marriage void. The
Attorney-General contended that his lordship had the
power if the consent of the lady was obtained by false
representations.
Miss Scott then proceeded with her evidence. She
said: I am the eldest daughter of Sir C. Scott, who
died in 1881. I became by that event entitled to
£26,000. I became acquainted with Mr. Sebright in
October, 1878. He made me an offer of marriage,
which I declined. He made me a second offer in 1880.
In 1883 I became engaged to be married to him. My
mother did not know of the engagement. I was then
living at Windsor. My mother resided at Walton-on-
Thames, and dur;ng the engagement Sebright took
lodgings in the village. My mother asked him to dis-
continue his visits, but be refused. After I came of
age Mr. Sebright gave me a sliamond ring, but after
that he tcld me that unless I gave it Lim back he
would be sent to prison for giving a bad cheque. I
returned the ring, and told him I did not
wish to be engaged to him any longer. Dr.
Tristram: Did you see an account in the
papers next day of your engagement to Mr. Sebright?
Yes, I did. Mr. Justice Butt: That you were en-
gaged to him (Sebright) ? Yes, my lord. Examina-
tion continued: In March, 1885, Mr. Sebright brought
me a bit of paper to sign. Ile said if I did so I should
never hear of ttse matter again. That month I con-
sulted Dr. Burton as to my health. After that there
was a family meeting at Bates' Ho'-el. I was present.
Colonel Hand and the lion. Arthur Hood were present.
Lady Scott did not attend. At that meeting it was
arranged that Mr. Sebright shonld not see me for six
months, but he was to be at liberty to write to me.
At that time I was anxious that toy connection with
Mr. Sebright should be broken off. Mr. Sebright
always pressed his attentions on me. He did not come
to my residence till the end of 1885, but I saw him
after that at the Lyric Club in June. Did he ask you
to be married to him? Yes, at the end of the
following month, but I refused. I had accepted
bills in his name, and I had received letters
from persons connepted with those bills. Mr.
Sebright was in the habit of corresponding with me,
and he sent me copies of the answers I was to give
to those letters. In the autumn of this year I
accepted bills' which were discounted by Messrs.
Williams and Co. Neither my mother nor my guar-
dian knew of the transactions. I was served with
writs in 1885 in connection with bills at Walton. I
sent to Mr. Sebright about the circumstance. I recol-
lect Mr. Sebright earning to Walton on the 28th
of December. Prior to that he had asked me to meet
him at Hampton. Ipromised to do 6, but did not,
as I was frightened. After that, did you see him?
Yes, I saw him at Walton. He cursed me, and said
he would ruin me if I did not marry him. You went
to Bournemouth in January last? Yes, and there I
received letters from Mr. Sebright. I met Mr.
Sebright at Lady Marian Alford's after that. What
did he say about the marriage? I had seen Lady
Marian and I bad asked her for advice, and
after that I, in company, saw Mr. Sebright. Mr
Justice Butt: You had not seen him since the
Hampton Court incident? Dr. Tristram: What
was said about the learriage ? Lady Marian told me
not to marry Mr. Sebright as he desired, and 1 com-
municated that to him. He was very angry, and said,
"I will pay you out for making a laughing-stock of
me." I remained in the house until it was too late to
be married at the Registry Office. Did he say any-
thing about being ruined? Yes, he said he should be
ruined if I did not marry him. Shoitly after that I
was served with writs concerning the bills. Mr.
Justice Butt: What is the amount of the bills signed
in all? The Solicitcir-General : £2325, my lord.
Examination continued: Mr. Burr told me he would
settle the bills if I marrried Mr. Sebright. I told
him I did not wish to. He said he would not settle
the bills without I did so. Was any arrangement
made that you should meet Mr. Burr at Mr. Guedella's
office next day? Mr. Guedella was a solicitor and a
friend of my mother's. I arrived at Mr. Guedella's
first. At this point Dr. Tristram put in a
letter from Mr. Sebright to Miss Scott, ap-
pealing to her to let him have £5OO to save him
from ruin. Examination continued: I answered
the letter by writing to Mr. Guedella from the Gros-
venor Hotel at Southsea, and asking him to help and
save me out of my present trouble in connection with
the bill transactions, at the same time informing him
that my mother knew nothing of the matter. Dr.
Tristram: Did you, in January, receive some letters
from Mr. Williams about bills? Yes, I did. Mr.
Sebright bad told me to tell Mr. Williams that the
£lOOO bills should be paid. Mr. Sebright had a room
at 27, Great George-street, which he called his office.
On the following day I went there. My mother was
ill in bed at this time. I went with my nurse. I saw
Mr. Sebright alone. He told me not to let Mr. Wil-
liams know that I had not received the £lOOO.
Soon after that Mr. Williams arrived, and
insisted on the amount being paid in the following
week. I told Mr. Williams Mr. Sebright had
promited to settle the matter. On the evening of the
29th I received a note from Mr. Sebright asking me
to see him the next day about the bills, but I was to
come alone. I was to meet him the next morning at
the corner of Mount-street. Emma Butler went with
me. After I had left Butler, telling her I was going
to see a gentleman on business some distance off, I
hired a cab. Mr. Sebright got into the cab and asked
me to lessee lio.do with him. We drove to South
Audiey-street. I did not know what tile omen wes.
Mr. Sebright led me upstairs by the arm. I was
awfully upset at the time. I did not know I was
going to a marriage office. Did you see anyone in the
room? Count Balharney. I believe he was a
foreigner. I had seen him before. Mr. Sebright
introduced me to him. What did Mr. Sebright
say to you? That he had brought me there to
marry him. What did you do or say? I was
awfully unhappy, and said I wished to go
out of the room. Did Count Balharney do any-
thing? He stood at the door to prevent me leaving.
Mr. Sebright said if I showed I was not acting of my
own free will he would shoot me. Ho had pointed a
pistol at me before—in May, 1885. Was anything
pot on your finger? Yes, but I threw it off. Mr.
Justice Butt: Who put the ring on? I cannot say,
but I suppose it was Mr. Sebright. I know I threw
the ring away. Dr. Tristram : After the ring was
thrown away what was done? I wanted to go out
of the room. What did Mr, Sebright eo ? Called
me back and said I was to sign the book. He said
if I did not sign my name he would ruin me. Did
he touch you at all? He took me by the arm and
brought me back. Did you speak to Count Bel-
harner, at all? No. Were you afraid of Mr.
Sebris,kt? Yes; he used to threaten me dreadfully.
Was it your wish to go through any form of marriage
wit h Mr. Sebright? No, certainly not. Would you have
gone through that ceremony but for Mr. Sebright?
No; certainly not. I did not wish to marry him at
all. After you had signed the book did anything
occur? I wanted to go downstairs. What did he
say? He (Sebright) told me I might go, as he had
got all he wanted out of me. Did he say anything
more to you? No. You got into a cab and returned to
your nurse ? Yes ; but I cannot say what state I was
in. You have only seen the respondent twice since
that? Only twice. You have never lived with Mr.
Sebright? No. The marriage has never been con-
summated? No. When did you tell your mother
about the liability about the bills? About the end of
last March. In cross examination by the Solicitor-
General, witness said that she was at the Registry
Office about twenty minutes. She did not know the
registrar's name. She did not know how many persons
were in the room at the time. Count Belharney stood
at the door. During the whole ti:ne she had her back
to the respondent. Did you not know that you were
going through a ceremony of marriage? I did not,
realise what it was. Did not the registrar take some
step in crder for you to realise what you were about
to go throurrh ? Yes, Was not the usual declare,.

ti zr. ztade ? f don't remember. I was toe upset to
hear. Did you repeat the usual declarations as to
aot knowing of any lawful impediment? I suppose
I did. Did not Mr. Sebright produce the ring and
place it on the book which Mr. Worlock (the registrar)
held? I don't remember. The ring was never over
my knuckle. I might have repeated the words in the
form prescribed. Did the registrar, at the close of
the ceremony, say, "You are now man and wife, and
I trust you will live happily together?" I don't re-
member him saying any such thing. I signed the
register in the name of Scott. I did not know it was a
register of marriages. I went away in a hansom cab.
Mr. Sebright did not try and get into the cab with me.
Re-examined by the Attorney-General: Did you know
that Mr. Sebright had a licence of the marriage when
you went to the registry. Yes; before that day he
had written a letter to me stating that he had got
one.

Mr. T. Worlock, superintendent registrar of the
parish of St. George's, Hanover-square, said notice
was first givan by Mr. Sebright for the marriage to
take place on the 11th of December last, but it wds
put off time after time until the 30th of January.
On the morning of that day he entered the room, and,
found there Mr. Sebright, Miss Scott, Count Bal-
harney, the registrar, and his clerk, Mr. Mercer.
Miss Scott seemed like a woman who had been
annoyed by Sebright, and she kept tapping one foot
upon the floor. The witness read the form of mar-
riage over, and asked both Mr. Sebright and Miss
Scott in turn whether they knew of any impediment
to the marriage. Both of them replied in the nega-
tive. The witness then asked for the ring, and asked
Miss Scott to declare that she took Arthur Edward
Saunders Sebright for her wedded husband, and she
did so. The witness then told the parties that they
were man and wife, and wished them happiness.
After the ceremony Miss Scott threw the ring
away. As she was leaving the room I called to
her that she had not signed the book, and she came
back and signed it after some hesitation. She then
got up and left the room, and Mr. Sebright followed,
but he said he should be back in a few minutes. That
is all that happened. Mr. Sebright returned, and said
he had to apologise for Miss Scott's conduct. It was,
he said, very unfortunate, but that morning she had
had an anonymous letter, but she would be all right
soon. The Attorney-General: Did not Miss Scott
during the whole time have her back to Mr. Sebright.
She conducted herself like a lady that had been an-
noyed. Was the ring ever picked up? No, it was
not. Did she not behave in the most violent manner,
and throw the ring away? Yes, just previous to
signing the register. By the Solicitor-General. When
the marriage ceremony is performed at the registry,
the marriage has actually taken place before the ring
is placed on the woman's finger. It was quite imma-
terial whether a ring was or was not given.
Lady Scott said she was the widow of Sir Claude
Scott, who died in 1880. The petitioner was licr
eldest daughter. She was entitled to £26,000 in her
own right under her father's will. She had, in addi-
tion, a reversionary interest in £30,000 on the
witness's death. It was arranged in 1885 that
Mr. Sebright should not see the witness's daughter
for six months. Up to March, 1886, she had no
knowledge that her daughter had been mixed up in
the bill transactions. About this time the witness
noticed that her daughter was suffering in health,
and that she was constantly in tears. The witness
wished her to have medical advice. She refused,
saying that she should soon be better. She got worse,
and at the time of the alleged marriage she was very
excited. The witness told Dr. Izod that she was
quite sure her daughter had something on her mind.
The witness knew nothing of her daughter's
visiting at Mr. Guedella's office. The Attorney-
General: Had you any idea that your daughter
had gone through the ceremony of marriage on the
30th of January? No, I had not. Did you think
your daughter was afraid of Mr. Sebright? Yes, I
always thought so. Did Mr. Sebright know the
amount of money your daughter had? Oh, yes; he
knew all about that. By the Solicitor-General: I
never really recognised that Mr. Sebright was engaged
to my daughter. I might have written to Sir John
Sebright, Mr. Sebright's brother, that there was some
kind of engagement. I did not know that in 1832
Mr. Sebright came into £20,000, being then of age.
(The Solicitor-General rEad a letter the witness had
written to Mr. Sebright's brother, in which she said
she had no desire to prevent the marriage.) Lady
Scott: Ino doubt wrote that letter. I never liked
the marriage, and I really thought that it would never
come to pass. The Attorney-General: After the
arrangement that had been come to that Mr. Sebright
was not to see your daughter for six months, had you
any idea they were meeting each other? Lady Scott:
No; certainly not.
Mr. J. Guedella, solicitor, Essex-street, deposed
that Miss Scott came to his office in an excited state,
complained that she was troubled by those "dreadful
bills," and said she could only get out of her difficulty
by marrying Mr. Sebright. Mr. Justice Butt : Was
Miss Scott of age at the time the bill was given?—.
Yes, my lord. This is an atrocious business about
these bills; why did you not communicate with
Messrs. Rose and Co.? I thought that events would
compel Miss Scott to tell them herself, because she
had implored me not to say anything about the inatta
to any one.

Elizabeth Butler, nurse in Lady Scott's family,
gave evidence as to accompanying Miss Scott to see
Mr. Sebright. When Miss Scott left her, she said,
"If you find I have done anything very dreadful, you
will know I am not in my right mind.'
Dr. Burton, of Wim pole-street, gave evidence as to
the condition of Miss Scott, mentally and bodily, in
March, 1885, at which time he said she was in a state
cf great mental distress, which increAsed as time
went on. Dr. Tristram: Dii Mr. Sebright ever call
cn you to ascertain Miss Scott's conPition ? Yes. I
declined to tell him. Sebright said, " Miss Scott '4l.
dying of love for me, and, mark my words, if her
marriage is deferred she will die." I told Mr.
Sebright Miss Scott ought not to marry until she was
25 years old.
The case was adjourned until Saturday, when

Eliza Dale was the first witness examined. She
said: I have been in the service of Lady Scott for
upwards of 20 years. In November and December
last year I noticed that Miss Scott was vary ill and
unhappy. She was very irritable and nervous, and
often crying. In January this state was growing
worse. Early this year I went to Great George.
street, shortly after the return of the family from
Southsea. When we got theta I saw Mr. Sebright,
and he told me I was to go into an inner room and
wait, which I did not do. I refused to do so. I stood
outside on the mat, and Miss Scott and Mr. Sebright
went into the room. She was crying, and said, "You
have ruined my life, and I shall never be happy again
until you are dead. I wish I had never seen you." I
saw a gentleman go in the room and the same person
it seemed to me soon came out again. Miss Scott
left shortly afterwards. I think Mr. Sebright called
the gentleman Mr. Davis. I did not see her served
with a paper. When she came out of the room she
was crying, and very agitated. We went back to the
hotel.

Miss Lena Scott, the petitioner, was recalled, and
stated that in Great George-street she was served with
a paper of some sort. She did not know the nama of
the bill to which it referred.

Colonel Sidney Hand: I am an officer in the army.
The petitioner is a goddaughter of mine. From time
to time I have seen her at her mother's house. In the
course of 1885 I saw Mr. Sebright. Did he appear
to have some control over Miss Scott ? Yes. In
1885 were you at the family meeting at Bates'
Hotel? Yes ; Colonel Hood and I spoke to Mr.
Sebright, and told him that if Miss Scott could
tolerate him. which I did not think she could, as she
had expressed her abhorrence of him to me, it would
be ridiculous for a man in his position to think of
marrying Miss Scott, and that be had better keep
away from her for six months, and if he could then
produce £lO,OOO he might have a better chance. Mr.
Sebright said all his money was sunk in business. He
further said that he thought the name of Sebright
was quite good enough for her. Was the young lady
present? Yes ; and she was in a very excited state.
Mr. Justice Butt: It was arranged that he should not
see Miss Scott for six months. How about writirg?
After some hesitation it was conceded that he might
write to Miss Scott. The Attorney-General: Did
you know of any engagement to no married. No;
certainly not.
Cross-examined: I think Miss Scott's affection
towards Mr. Sebright was assumed. She was
hysterical, and sobbed and cried. Did she kiss him?
Not in my presence. She may have called him Arthur.
Re was in " hysterical convulsions." To Mr. Justice
Butt: In January, 1886, she was not in her normal
condition.
The Hon. Arthur Nelson Hood: I am an officer in
the army. I have known Miss Scott practically all
her life. Under the voluntary settlement she made
in June, 1885, I was one of her trustees. Sir Philip
Rose was the other. 1 remember the meeting at
Bates' hotel. Mr. Sebright promised not to see Miss
Scott for six months. He was allowed to write to her,
but not otherwise to communicate with her.

Cross-examined: At this interview I don't think he
threatened to break off the engagement altogether. I
don't think Miss Scott objected to give him up. She
certainly said she wished to be let alone for Rix
months. I have no recollection of saying that she
was a "lively girl," and worth waiting for for 12
months.

Dr. Goodson, of 9, Grosvenor-street, said: I have
known Lady Scott and her family since 1880. In
1885 I was attending Lady Scott, who was seriously
unwell. The family were then at Walton. I re-
mained there for some days, during the absence of
Dr. Izard. From the 11th to the 16th of November
I was in daily attendance. I had then full oppor-
tunity of seeing Miss Scott. The Attorney-General:
What did you notice? That she was quite a different
girl to what she was formerly. Instead of painting
and doing fancy work, I found her constantly crying.
I spoke to her sister, and asked if it was anything
about Sebright that caused her sister's (Miss Scott's)
depressed condition. She replied, "I think it is, but
for goodness sake don't mention it to her." Did you
see her in December? Yes. She was in much the
same state that I had seen her in the previous
month. She was quite an altered girl. She had no
appetite, and was constantly crying. Did you see her
in January? Yes; and there was then a marked
difference in her condition; she was more excited.
What do you think produced it? Mental worry.
She was biting her fingers, and was very irritable,
quite different to her normal condition. What do
you think of her condition now? She is not so de-
pressed, but she is not the bright girl I knew her.

Mr. Errol Ross Smith said: I am on very friendly
terms with Lady Scott and her family. I saw Mies
Scott on Jan. 19th, 1886, at the Poultney hotel. She
seemed very much worried. I askeit her if hr
anxiety was about her mother's illness. She said
"No." The Attorney-General: Did you ask her
anything more ?—Yes; but she did not care to reply,
and then I made a chance shot and said, "You have
been backing bills for Sebright." I had a thought
at the time that she had been backing bills for
Sebright. What did she say?—She burst into lears
and admitted it. She pulled out a paper, but 1 did
not examine it. She told me the was afraid of
being made bankrupt. She said that she had seen
Mr. Sebright, and he had promised to settle every-
thing. She said that she wished Mr. Sebright was
dead. I said he was net worthy of her, and the
agreed with me. (Laughter.)
Sir Philip Rose, solicitor, said: I have acted pro-
fessionally for the late Sir Claude Scott and Lady
Scott. lam trustee under the settlement of the
petitioner, who on coming of age was entitled to
£26,000. The money previously was in Chancery,
The settlement was made entirely with the sanction
of the mother. She told me that she was in debt to
tradespeople. I had no knowledge of her accepting a
bill before 1886. Both Lady Scott and the petitioner
pressed for a settlement, and I expressed surprise
that she should want to tie up her money. The
matter dropped for a time, but was subsequently
renewed.

This closed the case for the petitioner.
Mr. Justice Butt then drew attention to the
pleadings and the particulars which had been fur-
nish ,d.

At this point, Lady Scott, the petitioner, and her
sister were taken out of court by the solicitor.
The Attorney-General then read the pleadings and
the particulars, and said that he at once would sly
that there was not the slightest ground for the alle-
gation that Miss Scott had been seduced by the re-
spondent. He was prepared, if necessary, to give
medical eviderce on this matter of the most satisfac-
tory nature. The threat indicated was not in refer-
ence to the actual commission of the act, but the
statement that WS alleged.
Mr. Justice Butt: I don't wish to go publicly into
this matter, but there was the allegation in tho rar-
ticulars that the respondent had said ha would
accuse the petitioner in every drawing-room in London
of having been seduced by him, and this is one of the
mctives acting upon her. That fact, if a fact it be,
would have a very important bearing on this case.
What I am pointing to is this: that having regard
to what passed most properly between the Attorney-
General and the Solicitor-General, some explanation
should be given in regard to this matter. I often am
aware that cases in this court are collusively prose-
cuted, and unless some explanation were given I
should certainly, in the event cf my judgment being
given in favour of the petitioner, refer this matter to
the Queen's Proctor to make inquiries.
The Attorney-General said it was only right to say
that he took the responsibility of withdrawing the
allegation himself, and he did so on the ground,
whether rightly or wrongly, that they had sufficient
evidence at present for annulling the marriage.
The Solicitor-General: If the allegation had been
attempted to be proved it would have been met with
direct denial, and I am quite prepared to put Mr.
Sebright into the box, who would, on oath, give the
statement a direct denial.

Mr. Justice Butt: Here is a thing in black and
white on the pleadings. If no explanation is offered
I shall have vary much doubt whether I ought not to
pronounce a decree.
The Attorney-Generil : With regard to the with-
drawal of the allegation, I take the entire responsi-
bility of Its withdrawal, and I am quite ready that
any quezcion on the sublect should be fully answered.
Mr. Justice Butt: You withdrew it, and he (Mr.
Sebrightl says it has never taken place. I think it
would not be satisfactory to decide the case until I
have had evidence nne way or the other.
The Solicitor-General then, amid great sensation,
called the respondent, and as he entered the witness-
box he turned deadly pale.
Arthur Edward Saunders Sebright : lam the re-
spondent in the case.
The Solicitor-General : Now attend to the ques'ion,
and reply to it shortly. Is there any ground what-
ever for the suggestion that there has ever been any
improper familiarity between you and Miss Lena
Scott?

Mr. Sebright (in a firm voice) : Certainly not; it's
a lie, every word of it.
The Attorney-General: That is my case, my lord;
but I will send for Dr. Izar3, and he will be ready to
answer the questions of your lordship when ho
arrives.

At this point Lady Scott, Miss Scott, and her sister
returned into court.

The Solicitor-General said he was extremely glad
that an opportunity had occurred of clearing away an
impression that might have existed after the present
case had passed away. He asked from the court a
decree that the marriage between Mr. Sebright and
Miss Scott was duly celebrated. Mr. Sebrigbt is a
young man,and some years ago he became acquainted
with Miss Scott. He came of age in 1882, and she
came of age in 1885, and so far as all the circum-
stances and the position of the parties in society a few
years ago were concerned, they were probably very
fitly matched. His present desire is that nothing
should be done by him or on his behalf to add to the
very painful recollections which must be inseparablo
from this case.

The Attorney-General then addressed the court at
some length on the legal aspect of the case, with the
view of showing that a decree of nullity of marriage
might be granted where one of the contracting
parties was of weak or of unsound mind, or gave
consent through terror or by reason of fraud. After
citing numerous cases, he submitted that the threat
of being made a bankrupt, carrying with it unknown
terrors for a young girl, was sufficient to justify,
the court in pronouncing a decree of nullity of mar-
riage. The whole story was a humiliating one. He
insisted that the disgraceful course taken to induce
Miss Scott to consent to the objectionable marriage
was the screw that was to drive her to despair—the
last turn of the rack upon which she had been writh-
ing for the last six months, to wring from her her
consent, which was no more a consent than if she had
been actually dragged to the place with the screw on
her thumb. What, he asked, could be thought of
the action of one who, when he had gone through a
ceremony of marriage, said to the young girl who
was the other party, "You may go now; I have got
all I wanted out of you?" He insisted that if the
girl was induced to go through a form of marriage
with the conviction that she was going to be ruined
there was ample evidence of duress and fear to render
her consent of no avail. He relied on the law of Eng-
land being sufficiently strong to protect the weak ; and
further, that no marriage was valid when the consent
was obtained by fraud.
Lady Scott was called, as Dr. Izard was not present,
and gave evidence to the effect that her daughter was
examined in her presence last March, and was pro.
nounced to be virgo tntocia.
His lordship said he would look into the cases cited,
and eive his decision subsequently.

In the Divorce Court on Tuesday morning, the
delivery of judgment in the Sebright nullity suit was
fixed by Justice Butt for 11.30. Considerably before
that hour the Court was crowded, and the doors
besieged, so great was the interest shown in the case.
Lady Selina Scott and the petitioner, Miss Lena Mary
Scott, were in the Court soon after eleven, but the re-
spondent was not present. The Judge entered the
Court at 11.45, and at once commenced to deliver his
judgment, during the most profound silence. He said
the petitioner's bodily and mental prostration was
clearly established, and he declared the marriage null
and void, respondent to nay costs. _

The decision. was received with loud and pro'onged
applause in the body of the Court, and in the gallery
allotted to the public, ard, strange to say, no attempt
was made to suppress it.
His Lordship then added: I think it right to men-
tion that I have received a letter from Mr. Arthur
Burr, whose name has been mentioned in the evidence.
In that letter he encloses some correspondence with
other people, which, of course, I have not read. I
have banded it over to the Registrar unread, and I
only wish to say that, although I do not suppose Mr.
Burr had any improper motive in addressing me, still
he ought to have known that it was extremely im-
proper to do so,