The New York herald., 1869-11-14
A WOMAN CHAMPI0NED.
The BisseIi Divorce Cause.-The Trouble Of
Shaking or a Marital Obligation-Wh
Constitutes "A Binding and Valid Marriage
Decree of Dixarce Granfed 10 Mrs. RisseIl.

JuuHe BhFhhfd, Az ehafbDef5 oi Inc 5upftmo
Court yesterday, rendered the following interest
ing opinion and decision In the case OF Beatrice
Bissell an infant, by her guardian, against John B.
Bisseii:-
This 10 an action for limited divorce on the ground
OF abandonment, under subdivision 8, section 61 ar
tice 4, title chapter OF Part OF the Revised stat
utes The allegation OF abandonment not contested,
but the defence rests upon denial OF the marriage.
The plaintiff was examined a witness in her own
BEHALF and the substance OF her testimony IS thas
she made the acquaintance OF the defendant In Janu-
airy, 1867 while she was residing In Brooklyn with
the defendants brother and his wife IN the capacity
OF The defendant, resided at the same place,
and there commenced paying attentions to her.
an offer OF marriage In the latter part OF June 1887.
which, after some hesitation on the part OF the plain
t by reason OF the difference IN social station be-
tween ber and defendant, was finally accepted BY
plaintiff. Very soon after the engagement the de-
endant stated to the plantn that he did not believe
In marriage ceremonies; that they might be legally
married without any ceremony; that there were
many such marriages, and he wished her to waive
the ceremony. This at first she refused to do but
series Of conversations followed during which the
subject was discussed, the defendant urging his
VIEWS and Soptendng that the marrlage n6s ne
laws OF the State OF New York., and thas
they would be as vadly married as Il three clergy.
men should marry them and as much man and wilo
IA his brother and his wife were The defendante
arguments finally prevailed, and about the lat OF
fixed the 18th OF July. The defendant furnished
plalntir with means 10 procure her marriage outfit,
Stesi. the plalntln made her preparations for che
marriage. On the 18th OF July, the day appointed,
thatsne was going to be married She met the defend.
ant IN New York, and they proceeded to Central
Park, where they took an open carriage, and while
In the carriage the defendant produced plain gold
Wedding ring which had been made from another
ring which she had given him for the purpose aboat
fortnight previous. He placed the ring upon ner
finger stating "Ths Is your wedding ring we are
marredn she rec received Sa the ring & as nat Wedding
as Charles is to his wife referring his brother and
his sister in-law). Will i've with you and take care
81 you ne days q my @ as my to No
Waverley place. where he had previously engaged
board for himself and wue; They were met 81 the
housewife asked If they were Mr.. and Mrs. Bissel,
and the defendant answered in the anirmatve.
They lived there together as man and wife for
about five weeks; during all the Tune the defendant
treated her az his wife addressed her and spoke OF
her as such. Sometime In August the delendant,
on the preence OF having met with pecuniary losses
induced the palntlfi to go to live with her aunk
until his circumstances should improve Since then
he has abandoned and repudlated her ana entlrey
neglected to provide for her OR his child, which was
born about May, 1868. shortly before abandoning
her he induced her to sign a paper drawn by HIM
performed between them. The defendant was also
examined as witness and testified that ne never
agreed to take the plaintiff as his vile, but alleges
tnat 1t was agreed that she should live with MIN as
his mistress aud that he should pass her on as his
wife. And he alleges that he gave her the WeuulnR
ring so as deceive other people and not excite the
suspicion that she was not his wue as ne reared
they were not married they would turn them out.
There is no pretence that up to the time OF tne
alleged marriage there mad been any MaeM ~ in,ef ,ss
plaintiff is corroDorated by Mrs. st. Car, VINO kept
the boarding house by her sister ana ner niece wno
lived there and who prove that before coming tnere
to reside the defendant engaged board ior nnlsen
and wife. Tnat while there they lived together as
man and wife, treating and speaking OF eacn otnsr M
and Mrs. stesl, who testify that the de-
Iendant assured them that although no ceremony
nad hpen peIfOrmed he had married the plalntlH.
aud she was his wife and entitled TO bear MS name,
and that II they had children they should ne & en-,
| man and wife as MIR. and Mrs. Stiesi, whose mar
riage had been solemnized In the usual FORM Tnere
can be no doubt that the testimony Of the paintln
| proves an actual and valid marriage between the
| plaintiff and defendant. The Revised Statutes de.
clare that 'marrage so lar as Its validity In law
| Concerned shall continue in this State civil con-
tract to which the consent Of parties capable OF con-
tractinG shall be essentain and II Is weH settled
| that no religious ceremony or form Of any descrip
/ t0n Is essential to the validity OF marriage. All
that is requisite Is that the pares should DC GapSos
| tract TO be man and wife. mere agreement 70
| marry at some future time, followed by cohabita-
/ tlon VIII not constitute marriage; but an agree
| ment made in the present tense, whereby the par
ties assume towards each other the marital relation.
is actual marriage. This agreement NAV be writ.
ten or verbal, with or without Witnesses and may
be proved IKE any other contract; when proved to
lawful marriage. The cases cited by the plaintiffs
counsel abuDdantly establish these propositions.
Bishop on Marriage and Divorce. secs. rs and 1e2
FenIon VS.. Reed, ] Johns 81; Clayton vs.. Warden,
New York $50; Ferrie VS.. The Public Administrator
Brad, Isl; Iummaty vs. Iummaty, do, ses;
Paige, 574; Matter OF Tayler do, Gill; Cheney vs.
Arnold, Is New York. 345; Hayes vs.. People, 25 do,
390 In cases affecting the legitimacy OF issue,
rights Of succession to property and many other
cases. such as contract OF marriage may be proved
| by circumstantial evidence, by admission OF the
| parties by their living together as man and wife,
| c. But there Is another class OF cases. such as
| there must be direct evidence OF the ACTUAL mar
rage, by actual marriage is meant not the solemnl
| zaton before minster.or magstrateAfor, as has
| already been shown no such solemnlzation Is
requislte-but what Is intended Is that the actual
making OF the marriage contract between the par
ties must be proved by direct evidence and not left
10 be inferred from circumstances, admissions and
the ike. Until by recent legislation the wife was
| made competent witness In actions in which her
husband ls party. 1t Is evident that where mar
rage Of this description was contracted In the alb
sence OF any witness there was no means OF iurnsh-
ing the direct proof required IN this class or cases.
and offences OF this description might be committed
/ with comparative impunlty. But now, tho wife
| being made q competent Witness her testimony II
corroborated and entitled TO credit, IS sufficient to
| establish the marriage. The only question in this
1t seems TO me Is as TO the creulbillty to be
/ attached to the testimony OF the plaintin and de-
| tendant respectively. The plaintiff stands unim-
ant while she Is corroborated By the testimony Of
Mrs. ST. Clair Miss Birch, Miss Knight and
Mr. and Mrs Stes. The elaborate cross-examna-
tlon to which she subjected failed to disclose
any material discrepancy in her evidence, and moth
ing was shown TO cast suspicion upon ner truthful
ness. opposed to her evidence are the denals or
the defendant. His testimony Is IN direct conflict.
not only with that of the plaintiff but also with that
OF Mr.. and Mrs. StiesL Independent OF this direct
contradiction by two apparently respectable wit
nesses not parties to the litigation, the position
assumed BY the defendant, In his own testimony Ia
not one which commends him to consideration
According to bis own story he was endeavoring TO
seiuce the plaintiff. The circumstances OF the
even those detailed by him-indicate that she
virtuous girl, and he himself testlnes that at
first the shameful proposals which he asserts he
made were rejected by her IN such manner as to
lead hun TO suppose that they would never meet
again me defendant now comes INTO court stating
his infamous attempt, and finally Succeeded ID
accomplishing her RUN; and he admits that without
tracteda marriage with another party who 10 IL
proved, was fully cognzant OF the pendency OF this
action, having been q witness In the defendanps
behalf in one OF It's preliminary stages. And now
| the defendant coniessine himself capable or the
denraylfY "a which nIlnsell, A9ka