The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-25 00:00:00

LA JP iNTELLIGENCE.—,Tan. 24.

DIVORCE COURT.

lIEVAN FALSELY CALLED WMAIION V, M'MAIION.-

EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

This was a suit instituted by Margaret Lee Bevan,
the petitioner, to set aside her marriage with James
M'Mahon, the respondent, on the ground that the
said marriage had been effected by fraud, and was
therefore null and void.

Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Brand were counsel
for the petitioner; and the suit was undefended.
Mr. Collier opened the case, and from the learned
gentleman's statement it appeared the petitioner
was the daughter of a wealthy and respectable sur-
geon, who had been in extensive practice, and re-
sided at Clayton Lodge, near Liverpool, at the time
of the marriage, but was since deceased. The re-
spondent was an omnibus conductor at Liverpool,
and the petitioner was in the habit of using his
conveyance, and the alleged marriage took place on
July 23, 1858, the young lady at the time being of
full age. Previous to the performance of the cere-
monythe petitioner had only a few interviews with
the respondent, and it did not appear that she had
any affection for him, or contemplated cohabiting
with him. It was agreed between the parties that
the marriage should be clandestine, that the respon-
dent was not to claim the petitioner as his wife for
two years, and the lady also states that she posi-
tively never intended to live with him. The learned
counsel said that he was quite unable to explain the
lady's motives for the strange conduct she ha.'l
adopted, but that she was at the time in a morbid
state of mind, labouring under the impression that
somebody had grievously wronged her, and in that
mood when the most desperate and unaccountable
acts have been committed. The parties knew that
they could not be secretly married at Clayton
Lodge, and they resolved that the ceremony should
be solemnised in a parish some miles distant,
viz., St. George's, Everton, Walton-on-the-Hill. It
was also arranged, in order to ensure secresy, that
he should obtain the license without giving her full
name, as well as a different description as to resi-
dence. The lady's mother's maiden name was Lce,
and her family, who lived at Chester, were highly
respectable, so that if the name of Lee had been
used, it would have led to the detection of the
parties, so that that portion of her name was sup-
pressed in the licence obtained from the surrogate.
She and the respondent were also described as re-
siding at Toxteth Park, near Liverpool, instead of
Clayton Lodge, and the respondent further misdi-
rected himself as a bookkeeper. The omission of
the name and the misdescription constituted the
fraud upon which the petitioner applied to the
Court. After the solemnisation of the marriage the
parties left the church in a cab and separated, the
respondent going to his employment, and the pe-
titioner returned to her home, where she had since
resided. The marriage was not consummated, and
no intercourse took place after the performance of
the ceremony. The marriage was discovered by the
petitioner's parent about a month after the cere-
mony, and she told the respondent, to whom she
appeared to have conceived considerable aversion,
that she would never live with him, and he had not
claimed her as his wife. Immediately on the disco-
very of the marriage the lady's father commenced
proceedings for a divorce, but died before they could
be prosecuted, and there was reason to believe that
his death was hastened by the indiscreet conduct of
the petitioner, who instituted the present suit her-
self.

Witnesses were called, who fully established that
the parties had been married under the misdescrip-
tions in question.
Miss Bevan, the petitioner, a young lady of con-
siderable personal attractions, was then examined.
—She stated that in 1858, while living at her father's,
she was introduced to the respondent by a cook in
the family. She saw him from time to time when
she travelled in his omnibus, and she had also some
interviews with him at her father's house. He
wanted her to marry him, and she at first refused.
He asked her several times, and she at last consented
and it was agreed that in obtaining the licence
he should suppress her name of Lee and state a false
residence in order to deceive her parents. It was also
agreed that he was not to claim her as his wife for
two years. After her parents discovered the mar-
riage she told him she would not live with him, or
be obliged to do so, and he endeavoured to persuade
her to the contrary. She only saw him once after-
wards in Devonshire, and there had never been any
familiarity between them.
A witness was also called to prove the falsification
of the description in the licence, which closed the
petitioner's cage as related to the facts.
Mr. Collier theti addressed the Court, and con-
tended that as the marriage under the circumstances
would be illegal if published by banns, it was also
invalid though solemnised by licence, though he
could not cite any precedent.
Sir C. Cresswell considered that from the novelty
and great importance of the case it was advisable
that it should be argued on the other side, and
before deciding he would desire the Queen's Proctor
to instruct counsel for that purpose.

Mr. Brand was heard on the legal points in sup-
port of the petition, and the case was adjourned.

HANSON V. HANSON.

In this case the wife petitioned the Court for a
dissolution of marriage, on the ground of her hus-
band's adultery and desertion, and the respondent
entered no appearance.
Dr. Twiss, Q C., and Dr. Tristram were counsel
for the petitioner.
It appeared that the parties were married in
1856, and shortly after the respondent, who is a
medical man, left his wife, and had not since
cohabited with her, or contributed anything to her
support ; but she had received letters from him,
assigning as a cause of his conduct that he was des-
titute of means. It appeared, further, that in 1858
he was living in Paris with another female, and the
facts of the case were fully proved.
Sir C. Cresswell having commented on the heart
less conduct of the respondent, granted the decree
nisi with costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—Tan. 24.

LAMBETH.--EXTRAORDINARY CASE—LIABI-
LITY OF A HUSBAND TO SUPPORT THE ILLEGITI-
MATE CHILDREN OF HIS WIFE.—Mr. Geo. O'Brien,
a gentleman, who formerly lived in Albany-road,
and who then carried on the business of a brewer
in an extensive way in Camberwell, attended a
second time to answer a summons taken out against
him by the board of guardians of the parish of
Camberwell to show cause why an order should not
be made to compel him to pay for the maintenance
of two children, the illegitimate offspring of his
wife before her marriage with him. It appeared
that about seven years ago Mr. O'Brien married
an actress of some fame, and considerable personal
attractions, and who was considered a lady of re-
putation and character, and the issue of the mar-
riage was two children, at present living. Some
time after the marriage Mrs. O'Brien had two
children and a young woman of 13 or 14 years of
age introduced to the house, and these she repre-
sented to her husband to be the children of her
sister, and her husband, believing them to be so,
allowed them to remain under his roof. A
change in his circumstances and other causes led
Mr. O'Brien to live away from his wife, but at
the same time ho allowed her 15s. a week for her
support and that of his two children, and this con-
tinned until 12 months ago. At that time a letter
was received by Mr. Sedgeley, one of the parish
officers, calling his attention to the destitute condi-
tion of some children at a certain house in the
parish, and on going there four children were found
in the cellar nearly naked, and in a most neglected,
wretched state, and they were at once removed to
the workhouse. The mother, who gave the name of
Moore, and the young woman who she represented
as her sister, were apprehended and examined at this
court on a charge of wilful neglect of the children,
and in the course of the investigation the true his-
tory came out, namely, that the young woman and
two elder children were the illegitimate offspring
of Mrs. Moore, as she called herself, before marriage.
After several examinations the mother and daugh-
ter were discharged, and on the• facts of the case
reaching the ears of Mr. O'Brien, he at once had
his two children removed to the care of a proper
person, and has since supported them. The other
two remained in the workhouse, and.an application
had been made to Mr. O'Brien to pay for their
maintenance, but he positively refused to subscribe
a single penny for their support; and a summons
was applied for and obtained against him. This
summons came on for hearing a fortnight ago, when
the defendant's attorney (Mr. Neale) took excep-
tion to his client's liability, on the ground that there
was no legal evidence before the Court to show that
the children were the illegitimate offspring of Mrs.
O'Brien. All the officer could say was, that Mrs.
O'Brien herself had said so • but this was no proof,
as she had told her husband that the children be-
longed to her sister, and therefore no reliance was
to be placed on her word. He (Mr. Neale) con-
tended that there should be legal proof of the ille-
gitimacy of the children before his client could be
called on to maintain them.
On the application of Mr. Sedgeley, the parish
officer, the case was adjourned for a fortnight, to
afford time to find out Mrs. O'Brien to give
the necessary evidence, and the parties again ap-
peared before the lion. G. C. Norton,
Mr. Sedgeley informed his worship that he had,
since the former day, made every exertion to find
Mrs. O'Brien, but without success, and therefore he
had no further evidence to offer in the case. .
Mr. Neale again urged the former objection, and
Mr, Norton admitt‘d that farther proof was