The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-05-09 00:00:00

A NOVEL CASE.

In the Court of Probate and Divorce the cause of
"Holmes (by his guardian) r. Simmons, falsely called
Holmes" has been heard, and was a suit of some
novelty and importance. It was a petition presented
by Mr. Scroggs, the guardian of a lad named Holmes,
for a declaration of nullity, on the ground of false
declarations made to the registrar of maniages and
the proceeding was taken in obedience to an order of
the Court of Chancery, of which the petitioner was a
ward. It has already been decided that a misdescrip-
tion with a view to deceive a surrogate is not fatal to a
marriage, but that in the case of a wedding by banns
the description must be full and accurate. Thus,
where a young lady, named Margaret Lee Bevan, had
contracted a marriage with a 'bus conductor upon a
license Wherein she was described as "Margaret
Ik-van" only, and with a false address, the court,
though there had been no cohabitation, held her to her
bargain; whereas in a case where a young man named
Bower Wood had had his banns published as "John
Wssl," the court, though there had been cohabitation,
annulled the marriage. But the case of a marriage
upon a false notice to a registrar had never before
arisen. The following are the particulars : •

The petitioner, Frederick Cyril Robins Holmes, was horn
on the 27th f June, 1851. His father died in 1869, and his
another married a Mr. 31:Intel' ; but both had since deceased.
Soon after Christmas, 1.865, Laura Emma Harris Simmons
was engaged by Mrs. Maiden as nursery governess at a salary
of C-14 a year. The petitioner was at school, but he hail two
brothers and a sister younger than himself. Soon after this
he came home, and speedily grew very fond of Laura, who
used to put him to bed like the other children. When his
neither died the attachment increased, and be proposed
marriage to the respondent. On the 19th of November they
were accordingly wedded at the registrar's office in Oxford.
The marriage was kept secret for about ten days, and then
Mr. Scroggs, who was appointed guardian in the following
month, bearing id what hail OCCUITCIi taxed them with it.
They confessed what they 118.1 done, and he gave them a
severe scolding but he could not then otherwise interfere,
and they lived openly as man and wife till the 16th of
December, when they were commanded by the Court of
Chancery to separate. The notice to the registrar was full
of falsehoods. It stated that they were of the ages of nine-
teen and twenty-one, whereas the bridegroom was much
younger and the wife much older. It was stated that the
one lived in Jericho, at Oxford, and the other in Holywell,
whereas both had never lived anywhere except at Millington ;
and lastly, their names ware given simply as Frederick and
Laura. .

---Evidence of these facts was produced, and to show that
the petitioner's full name most have been known to the re-
spondent, a map which he had executed at school, and signed
" S. cyril lloknes," the fetidly Bible, and his own Church
Service, In which his names were set out, and an old hand-
kerchief marked with nil his initials, were put in. On the
other hand, chomes which Mr. Scroggs had given to the re-
spondent, and which she hail endorstsi "L. Simmons," were
pnahmed.

life. Coleridge contended that a marriage at a registrar's
I dike must be regarded as in the same category as one by
banni. Is the Cage of licenses the law threw the wilt de re-
sponsibility upon the church, and thesefore refused to nullify
any maniage so solemnised if it could be shown that there
was a eonstat de persona—hi other words, that the license
had really been obtained for the persons who were married
upon it. On the other hand tbe Object of banns was to give
notice to the public, and that notice mast be accurate, or it
was nothing. In fact a marriage had been declared null
where the real name of one of the parties had been used,
but where it was a name by which that party had not been
generally known. The Act of 19 and 20 Vic., cap. 119, which
substituted for banns a notice stuck up in a registrar's office,
where of cosine nobody would ever think of going to look
for it, might vey properly have been called "Air Art to
render safe Clandestine Marriages ;" but surely such small
and absurd precautions salt did take might to be rigidly en-
forced.

Mr. Denman, on the other hand, contended that the
marriage was valid. It was true that all their names were
not given, but the parties were known as Frederick Holmes
and Laura Simmons by all their friends, and the notice had
therefore been sufficient to identify them, as they never
passed by any other names. The Marriage Acts expressly
declared that marriages should not lie declared void by
reason of the patties not residing within the district, conse-
quently that mis-statement in the notice was immaterial;
MO the ages were of no importance at, long as It was truly
stated that the plaintiff was under age, aml that he had no
parent or guardian to prevent him from contracting any
marriage he pleased.
The court reserved its judgment.