The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-18 00:00:00

DIVORCE COURT.

(Before the Judge Ordinary, Mr. Justice Willes,
and Mr. Baron Chaunell.)

BRYAN (FALSELY CALLED M'MAHON) V. M'MAHON.
This was a petition by Margaret Lea Bevan for
a declaration of the nullity of her marriage with
James M'Mahon, on the ground that the licence
under which the marriage was solemnised had been
obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation.
The Judge Ordinary said the Court had directed
the question to be argued, not because they enter-
tained any serious doubt upon it, but because of
its-very grave nature and of its importance to one
at least of the parties interested. Having now had
the benefit of a very able argument on both sides,
they were satisfied that their first view was cor-
rect, and that they were bound to hold the mar-
riage good. In this particular instance their
decision must, he was afraid, inflict a good deal of
sorrow and misery upon the petitioner, but a deci-
gon the other way might have been still more
p&inful to a person in her position if the point had
been raised in another manner, for a man after
marriage under these circumstances, followed by
cohabitation and the birth of children, might have
eallei upon the Court to annul that marriage, to
reduce the woman at a late period of life to the
positiol of a mistress, and to bastardise the chil-
dren. !f, therefore, they were to be governed by
considerations of public policy they would be
inclined to uphold the marriage ; but the ques-
tion must be decided upon the terms of the
statute of George IV. In that statute a great
distinction was made between banns and

cences. The second section directed with respect
to banns that notice was to be given to the
minister at a certain time before the kmblication of
the true Christian names and surnames, and of the
places of residence, &c., of the parties, and by
another clause marriages without " due publica-
tion," which had been held to include publica-
tion of the true Christian names and surnames,
were to be null and void. Something more
was required beyond the mere names,—
namely, the places of abode and the length of time
in which the parties had dwelt in the parish, but a
subsequent section enacted that misdescription in
these matters should not be a ground of nullity.
Then the 10th section as to licenses provided that
no licenses were to be granted except in certain
cases, and the only section relating to nullity, the
22d, said, "If any persons shall knowingly and
wilfully intermarry, without due publication of
banns or:license from a person or persons having
authority to grant the same first had and obtained,
the marriage of such persons shall be null and void
to all intents and purposes." In "Dormer v. Wil-
liams" (1 Curt., 70), the question was whether the
license was granted by a person having authority
to grant the same. No question of that sort arose
in this case. The marriage was solemnised. at a
place within the jurisdiction of the person who
granted the license, and who had a uthority to grant
it. He had an affidavit before him containing
statements as to matters with respect to which he
was authorised by statute to require a statement.
Was the marriage vitiated by reason of misstate-
ments in that affidavit ? He found no authority
for that proposition, but, on the contrary, man'
dicta in a long series of cases denying it strongly,
and pointing out the difference in that respect
between banns and licenses. It came at last to the
question, as Mr. Brandt had put it with great
force, whether or not this was a license. From the
time of Lord Stowell downwards there were cases
in which a partial departure from the true name,
even in the publication of banns, had been held in
the absence of fraud not to annul the marriage.
These decisions showed that the name so
altered represented the persons. Did not the
name Margaret Bevan in this case represent
the lady ? Was not the license granted for
her ? Did she not authorise 3,‘Mahon to get
it for her under that description ? Had she not
contracted with him to marry him ? The
license had been granted by a person who had
authority to grant it, although one of the lady's
names was suppressed in order that the surrogate
ni;oht not suspect who she was ; yet, there being no
pretei;ce for saying that it was obtained for any
other' person and transferred to her, and.there being
authority fot' saying that such an altered name
might represent her, she having authorised M'Mahon
to obtain the license, and he having accordingly
obtained it, the court could not say that the mar-
riage solemnised under it wag null.
The other learned judges concurred.
The prayer for a declaration of nullity was ac-
cordingly rejected.