The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-11-11
MRS. HYNES MARRIAGE

THE GENERAL TERM OF THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS AFFIRMs ITS vALIDITY-IMPoRTANT
OPINION BY JUDGE LARREMoRE.
William R. Hynes. wealthy resident OF New YORK.
was killed in London by runaway accident in the
month OF June. 1874. Previous to his death. how
ever. as is claimed. he married Miss Saunders In
London the fruit Of such marriage being two chill
dren. 1t seems that there was no religious ceremony
performed but that the parties agreed to live as man
and wife. such agreement being followed by cohabi
tation up to the time Of Mr.. Hynes death. Whom
the widow of Mr.. Hynes arrived in this
country to claim the estate Of her deceased
husband on behalf OF herself and the children
she met by . refusal from those In possession
Of the property it being charged that she had mover
been married and that the children were illegiti-
mate. She. for herself. and William H. Secor as
guardian for the children. accordingly brought a
suit in ejectment against May J. McCreery. and La
vinia Gay the profits derived from certain
property on the corner of Twenty seventh street
and Madison avenue. The trial, which took place
before Judge j. f. DAILY nearly two years ago. at tho
time attracted considerable attention. the questions
involved being exceedingly intricate and interesting
At the conclusion OF the trial. which was somewhat
prolonged the jury found in favor of theplaintins
upon all the special findings. The defendans appealed
to the Common Pleas. General Term. and that
court. Judge Larremore writing the opinion. yester-
day affirmed the judgment below.
HOW THEY WERE MARnIED.
In the course of the testimony in the trial below
1t shown that Mr.. Hynes had once said that he
considered man and woman who were true to each
other rs much married as though the ceremony had
been performed over them in church. He then
offered Miss saunders ring, which after while
considered her his wife. In her testimony Mrs.
Hynes emphatic in stating that Mr.. Hynes in
land and in France and that be often told her ne
would take her to America and make their home
there. She stated further that the agreement was
repeated while crossing the English Channel and
also in France. Upon the facts brought out Oh
the trial. the question A. to whether the mar
State Now York. The jury found that the English
marriage did take place and that the children were
JUDGE 1.ARRxxonK's OPINION.
Judge Larremore holds that 1t Ii apparent by
the testimony and verdict that it was the inten-
ton OF the parties to enter into the marriage rea-
ton. 1.-THE only disproof of such marriage, he
says. els 3 registry of baptism. with which Mrs.
and an offer of proof OF lease of premises
taken in her former name Of Saunders. Hynes
owned property in New York and once resided here,
and confronted by the verdict it cannot be hold that
he was not y resident of this State at the time of
his alleged marriage. Conceding. however. for the
in England, that upon the English Channel and the
subsequent in France next claim attention.
There proof OF tho nationality OF the vessel
in which the parties sailed and the Court cannot in
dulge in differences upon this point Assuming.
then that the parties were able to contract dfd
contract marriage with view to future residence
in the of New York the presumption is in favor
of the validity of the marriage. The testimony
offered to prove the French law as to marriage did
not meet the requirements of our statute.
Judge Larremore in conclusion says:-"I have
reviewed the several exceptions in this and lind
no substantial errors in the rulings. 1t tried
upon the theory that citizen OF this State tempo
rarily adjourning abroad should far as property
in this State Is concerned be held to the
.quences of his own act. The jury having found
arnatvely all the distinctive facts at issue. and
of record appearing. the judgment appealed
from should be affirmed, with costs.
/ Judge Van Brunt writes q concurring opinion, in
which he holds that the last marriage valid and
that the validity Of the marriage Is to be determined
by the lex loci contractus.