The Express.
London, England, 1868-05-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIG,

..wencirOZITAIN 00611ITY 0017121.
(Mang days appealed ier Ma present weak.)
BLOONNIVILT, —Monday, May a ; Tuaday,
5;
MART
TI / , 11.
MARTISON'. —Tweedy, May 6 ; Wad-
weeday,6 leriday 6.
WANDOWOITI. kwallielanst—Temaday, May 6.
Doncamtarrion—Mandy, May a: Wainer
day,ll ; Friday, &
Imoamoram, Oldwiresiwoot—Tuesday, May ; Thom
llowina&—Mooday, May 4 ; Fri 8.
Wririnomarm., Orea4 Presooistmet.—Wday, edamday, May A ;
Thanday, 7.
looTnwasi, &wan-street —Tuesday, May 5 ; floridly, T ;
Triday, &
LaMMors, Camberwell Newproad.—lnaelsy„ May 6.
Gammenon.—Wedneaday, May 6.
(INITIAL Ciamm.u. 000/N.-310adaT, MAT 4.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
MAT 2.
(Ware the Judge Ordinary.)
noLima (BY HUI GUARDIAN) v. SIMMONS. SAMNA CALLID

Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., Dr. Middleton, and Mr. IClntre,
foe the petitioner ; Mt. Denman, Q.C., and Mr. Lord, for
the respondent.
This was • suit of some novelty and importance. It was
a petition presented by Mr. &rows, the guardian of • lad
named Holmes, foe a declaration of nullity, on the ground
of false declarations made to the registrar of marriages,
and the proceeding was taken in obedience to an order of
the Court of Chancery, of which the petitioner was •
ward. It has already been decided that a misdescription
with a view to deceive a surrogate is not fatal to a mar-
riage, but that in the ease of a wedding by banns the des-
sription must be full and accurate. Thus, where • young
lady, named Margaret Leo Bevan, had contracted • mar-
riage with a 'bus conductor upon a license wherein she was
described se "Margaret Bevan" only, and with • false
address, the court, though there had been no cohabitation,
held her to her bargain • whereas in a ease where • young
man named Bower WoOd bad had his banns published as

"John Wood," the court, though there b:d been co-
habitation, annulled the marriage. But the cu (of
marriage upon a false notice to a registrar had never before
arisen.

The petitioner, Frederick Cyril Robins Holmes, was
born on the 27th of June, 1851. Hie father died in 1859,
and his mother married a Mr. 11Lontell ; but both had gnu
deceased. Soon after Christmas, 1865, Laura. Emma Harris
Simmons was engaged by Mrs. Mantel] as nursery governess
at a salary of 146. a year. The petitioner was at school,
but he had 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 mother died the attachment in-
creamed, and he 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 ap-
pointed guardian in the following month, hearing
of what bad occurred taxed them with it. They con-
foamed what they bad 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 Decem-
ber, when they were commanded by the Court of Chancery
to separate. £he notice to the registrar was full of false-
hoods. It stated that they were of the ages of 19 and 21,
whereas the bridegroom was much younger and the wife
mull older. It was stated that the one lived in Jericho,
at Oxford, and the other in Holy well, whereas both had
never lived anywhere except at ICidlington ; and lastly,
their names wore given simply as Frederick and Laura.
Evidence of these facts was produced, and to show that
the petitioner's full name must have been known to the
respondent, a map which he had executed at school, and
signed " F. Cyril Holmes," the family Bible, and his own
Church Service, in which his names were set out, and an
old handkerchief marked with all his initials, were put in.
On the other band, cheques which Mr. Scraggs had given
to the respondent, and which she had endorsed " L.
Simmons," wore produced.
Mr. Coleridge contended that a marriage at a registrar's
office must be regarded as in the same category as one by
banns. In the case of licenses the law threw the whole
responsibility upon the church, and therefore refused to
nullify any marriage so solemnised if it could be shown
that there was a constat de persona—in other words, that
the license had really been obtained for the persons who
were married upon it. On the other hand, the object of
banns was to give notice to the public, and that notice
must 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
noticestuck upin•registrar's office, where of count. nobody
would ever think of going to look for it, might very pro-
perly (have been called `An Act to render safe clan-
destine Mamages ; "but surely such small and absurd pre.
cautions as it did take ought to be rigidly enforced.
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 Mar-
riage Acts expressly declared that marriages should not be
declared void by reason of the parties not residing within
the district, consequently that mis-statement in the notice
was immaterial ; and the ages were of no importance so
long as it was truly slated that the plaintiff was under ate,
and that he had no parent or guardian to prevent hum
from contracting any marriage he pleased.
The court reserved its judgment.

6 9
8 0
6 0

.e o