The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-06-14 00:00:00

ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF
MARRIAGE.

An action is pending before Lord Shand in the Court
of Session, Edinburgh, in which Mrs. Young, or
Gordon, daughter of the late William Young, formerly
a merchant in Rio de Janeiro, seeks to have it de-
clared that she is the lawfully married wife of George
John Robert Gordon, of Ellen Crude, county of Aber-
. deem and formerly connected with the diplomatic
service. The pursuer alleges that she was married in
1843 to the defendant at Rio de Janeiro, that they con-
tinued up to 1870 to live together as husband and wife,
and that they had three chil tree. She also says that the
defender and the Baroness Beulwitz went through the
form of marriage at St. Chad's Church, Manchester,
on the 28th of August, 1871, this second marriage
being duly registered, and the defender at the time de-
scribing his condition before the marriage as that of a
bachelor. The pursuer had aim ascertained that on
the list of August, 1872, a child was registered by the
defender in the district of St. Gibe's, Edinburgh, as
being a legitimate child born of the second marriage
on the 28th of August, 1871.
The defender, in hie "statement of facta " admits
the marriage with the pursuer in 1843 at Rio de Jimiero,
according to the law os :be United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland. The marriage, he says, was eel°.
brated by the Chaplain of the Legation at Rio, in
virtue of the let section of the Statute George IV., c.
91., which declares the validity of all marriages
solemnized by a minis'er of the Church of Kogland
within the chapel or house of any British Ambassador
or Minister ruding within the counrzy to which be is
accredited. He admits, further, that, after this
marriage and till the year 1867, he and the pursuer
lived together an man and wife. Between May, 1867,
and July, 1869, however, they did not no live together.
During that period cite only lived with hlm for • few
weeks in summer, when they occupied separate bed-
rooms ; and in Jule, 1869, she left, and had never since
lived with him. He adds that he has never disputed
or denied that the marriage at Rio de Janeiro was a
valid marriage, according to British law, and that the
children of that marriage are legitimate according to
that law, and that such marriage would be held valid
and the children legitimate in every court of her
Majesty's dominions to which the statute in question
extends. But such marriage is, he contends, null and
invalid in all itier countries, because it was not con-
tracted according to the law of the place of contract—
viz.. Rio de Janeiro. The defender is a Roman
Cathode, and the Baroness von Betilwitz is also a
Roman Catholic. The defender took the advice of the
most learned of the clergy of his Church as to the
validity of his marriage with the pursuer. This he
did after ehe left him in 1869. The opinions which he !
received of persons learned in the law of marriage as
recognised in the Roman Catholic Church were to the
effect that, whatever might be the binding efficacy of
the ceremony entered into at Rio de Janeiro, in virtue !
of the above statute, in any civil court within her !
Majesty's dominions, the marriage was null and void !
according to the law of his Church. It was in these
circumstances, he adds, and on the advice of the
religious persons whom he consulted, that he went
through a marriage ceremony with the Baroness von
Beulwitz at Mancheister'on the 28th of August, 1871,
he having explained to the Baroness his position. On
the whole, the defender pleads that the action ought
to be dismissed as uncalled for and unnecessary.