The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1863-02-13
THE ENGLISH DIVORCE COURT.

thousand dsssre have quilted the army since tho bAs
tie OF tbs l3sh. $500 1850
THE ENGLISH DIVORCE COURT.
The Divorced wife Of she Brltish Consul
tn New Orleans Marriss Again and As
NOW i From i The London sT Tunes Jan AL y
COURT POK DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES, JAHU.
ARA ~. saIas r..a \
'Ns' Mr.. baron c6anneii
CHICHESTER vs.. AuRs (rAsRLY CALLING HKKszIy cncHDnM
This came before the Court upon demurrer 70 the
petition for declaration OF nulty Of marriage. Inc
question raised was whether o second marriage. con
tacted by person whose first marriage has been dissolved
time limited for an appeal 10 the House o{ Lords Is null
and void The question turnod upon the CONSTRUCTION 70
act Of 1867, by which psrsoss whose marriages have
been dissolved are enabled 70 marry again mo mtg
sixth section Of the aot provides that either party ds
satisfied with the decision Of tho Court any petition
for the dissolution q marriage sy within three months
after tho prcnouncing thereof appeal thererom 70 the
Lament be stng ead Of such three months,
then within fourteen d.ys next after its meeting Tho
Afty-sevsnth section n In these Words:- q st
When the tie hereby Limited appealing againsenny
decree dh. ns
any such appsa shs have bees dsmissed or when in The
r IL e e
Bssu sosaS 70 again. " tho prior marriage had
The petitioner IN this case, George Augustus Hamilton
Chichester alleged THAT the 9th Of August, 1852 be
married Ia feel TO Lucy Virginia Elizabeth Murc,
then lately the SITE Of William Murc, Esq. Der Maestys
Consul at New Orlsans under her maiden OF Oliver
1t the British Consulate Paris, that upon the said 9th
Of August, 1859, L. T. Mure was BY law incapable Of
entering into the contract Of marriage by that she
had been lawfully married 70 the said Mam Murc Tint
the aidwliam Aurc WAS st living that although the
Court had on tho petition OF the said William Aure pro-
cree was pronounced on Che ist q July 1850 iSs. no
time limited by tho presenting appeal against
that decree had not expired on the sih Of August 1882
spondsnt was null aud void. Tho respondent dsmarrsd
70 this etition the ground that from the date Of the
decree she became and vas f~s soe for spurposes,
md IN particularly she capable OF contracting
iiage and thai the act did declare null and void
marriage contracted before the expiration Of the time
'arr +. N@s and 61;eAeisr" snd inas sAs dsree ras
him. in the afdavit verifying tho petition Mr.. Chiches
stated that he intended 70 take proceedings anoher
TINT be couid NOT safcy do 70 uni the question Of tho
validity Of the marriage had been decided VA $40 IA
The q Gems Advocate with whom was DR.. hiddleton)
supported the demurrer. u primo impres-
sos, and It Involved question Of theast Importance.
He commended, first that statutes Affecting marriage
~ BIO construed by the rules as other statutes
secondly that where statute affecting marriage con-
tanned proh bltory words those words not 20 be
trayention OF them null and void, unless they
werc expressly nullined by the statute thirdly, that
conracted 10 oontravcntion Of It's peovirons; furthiy
that IN or doubt, II the duty ri the Court 70
s I" us tho g q
70 Or Lushingtons Judgment n ~Cateral Vs. Swcemsnn
Il Robcrsons Ecc., aool which, he said exhausted OIL
the Law and the learning the subject The words In
this section prohibtory md directory, not uuy
Ing wWds. The only two persons who could have ap-
peed against the deere the respondent and the
respondent the former suit. They the persons
who bad cont acted the marriage, AID II could not be
contracted within the time limited for tho appeal.
The Judge Ordinary pot the case Of marriage sitss
MI aan N
DO indicted for bieamy. fw 9aEsl ~
The Queens Advocate said she would not be guilty Of
The Judge ordnary-suppose tho birth OF child or
the second marriage before the appeal was decided and
e subssanent reversal u the Decree would the child Dc
me queens 1dyocate-n would be ileg.timase.
The JsdTe ordnary--Then the second marriage was
The Queens Advocate No doub. when the decree
reversed would be void a. Seio THIS might % void
reversed The object o. The section was merely %
allow tire Or an apea nct 70 place ressricons On shs
Dr. srxKs with whom Gas Mr. fIume wlnians) for the
petitioner. commanded that "Csieral vs. Ssseman" and
bearing on this qncen The:e statutes merely c0at.n
b sss valid before thay we Erased with
ont such forms and cererncuiss The burden Of pro1
49, s nvorcs ~. % ns &
the Law Of Fl gland until the oct passed Peore the
act second marriage during tho lifetime Of both the
ties the 6rst marriage would have been invalid snd tho
validity c'nferrcd By tho act vas subject 70 tho
conditions imposed by tho the question depended
upon general principles and could not be decided
the tho respondent and the correspond
in the drst suit tho persors who had contracted
the marriage. The effect Of tho argument the
other side would DO that n man who had been divorced
by decree Of this court married asecond c after the
decree, and the decree Afterwards reversed on
appeal he would have two Lawful, wives living at the
game time marriage must be valid or invalid .: the
time when 10 ce,ebrsied. Its validity could
affected by any circumstance occurring aftor IL cce
bratiou.
After committing with the other Judges. r..
Tho Judge Ordinary said that At present the Court did
not feel any difficulty their decson u question
but consequence VI its and aeneri importance
they thought right 70 put their opinions into writing
before delivering H.