The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-11-13
THE sEBR1GHT DIVORCE CASE.

A Wealthy Young Girl Coerced Into Mar
riage by an Aristocratic Scoundrel.
LONDON, Nov. 12.-The Sebright divorce case
was brought up for preliminary hearing to-day.
The action is brought by Mrs Arthur Sebright,
who asked to have her marriage declared void
the grounds that she was induced to consent
to have the ceremony performed by fear, and
that the marriage has never been consummated.
The plaintiff is daughter of Lady Scott OF
Southampton, and is noted for her beauty.
The defendant is a well known London club man.
The plaintiffs friends assert that the defendant,
coveting her private fortune of f200, 900, man
aged TO inveigle her into financial transactions
which finally fell upon her for settlement at a
time when she had to choose between refusing
to pay and be compromised, or escaping by
marrying the defendant and permitting him to
liqudate.
At the hearing, to-day, Mrs. Sebrishts coun-
sci admitted the marriage, which, he said, was
performed at the registrars last January. He
contended however, that no marital relation had
ever taken place; that the parties had never
lived together and that there had been no i'm
propriety in the financial transaction which
caused their marriage Mr. Sebrght had in
duced the petitioner to accept certain bills, and
she had been led to believe that a marriage cere-
mony between her and the respondent would
relieve her of the financial liability incurred.
The judge said he thought that, under these
circumstances, it would be impossible to nullify
the marriage, and announced that he would
hear testimony with view to deciding if there
was sufficient reason to grant divorce.
Mrs. Sebright was called to the witness stand
and sworn. She testified that she, through her
father had inherited in her own name G130, 900,
in addition to a reversion of G150, 600 on the
death of her mother She had met Mr.. Sebright
when she was but fifteen years of age, and the
acquaintance had been continue. He proposed
marriage to her after they had been acquainted
a short time only, but her mother declined 20
permit an engagement. Mr. Sebright continued
his visits to the house. however, and was re-
ceived on terms of friendship. Finally Mr..
Sebright induced the witness to engage herself
to him in marriage, unknown to her mother.
After this he persuaded her, from time to
time, to sign 'bits of paper which
he supplied Eventually the witness
ascertained that she had appended her name to
notes and bills. and made herself liable for sums
amounting to Sic, ,620. Writs were served upon
her for these amounts She then appealed to
Sebright He said the only way in which she
could save herself from ruin was by marrying
him. This, the witness said, she refused to do.
Mr.. Sebright next requested the witness to meet
him alone, and she did so. He took her to place
unknown to her, hut which she learned was the
registry office. She wished to leave the room the
moment she found where she was. Count Bal
barney % friend of Sebrlght's who was present,
blocked the door. and Sebreht said to her that
he would shoot her if she dared TO show
that she was not acting with free will in the mar
riage which he was about to have performed be-
tween them. He then forced ring on her finger
the witness threw it off and again tried to leave
the room. Sebrght seized her by her arm and
forced her back and made her sign the register
The witness said that she did not hear the regis
trar read the form of marriage nor hear him say
anything. II was too upset and too dreadfully
frightened, she declared, 'to hear anything at
the time"
The registrar, being sworn. deposed that when
Mrs Sebright was before him she was agitated,
but that she repeated the marriage declarations
without any hesitation, and also the marriage
form wheE Sebright took her hand. The wit
ness added that subsequently the lady threw the
marriage ring on the floor, but signed the regis
try without hesitation or demurring.
Lady Scott, Mrs. Sebright's mother, and two
doctors testified that the petitioner was COM
pletely broken down, mentally and physically,
after the ceremony, and was always .remulous,
and crying, and in constant terror.
AT this point the hearing of the case was ad-
journed. During the proceedings the court was
crowded wish people belonging to the arstoc-