Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1886-11-13
The Result, Of . Forced Marriage.


GAL TRANSACTIONS THAT COMPELLED HER,
THROUGH FEAR, TO WE'D.
The Sebright divorce case was brought up for
preliminary hearing in London yesterday. The
action is brought by Mrs. Arthur sebright. who
asked to have her marriage declared void on
the grounds that she was induced to consent 10
nave the ceremony performed by fear, and
that the marriage has never been consum-
mated. The plaintiff is daughter Of Lady
Scott, OF Southam pton, and noted for beauty;
and the defendant Is Il weli-known London
ciuD man. Mrs. Sebright testifies that through
her father she had inherited in her own name
S13O.U00, in addition 10 Il revenue OF Sl5U,OOO
on the death OF ner mother. she had met Mr.
Seabrigh: when she was but fifteen years OF
age. Mr.. Sebright induced witness TO engage
herself 10 him in marriage unknown 10 Ter
mother. Alter this he persuaded her from time
~ time to sign ''UitS Oh paUer' Whicu he sup
Piled, and winch turned out to be notes and
bills Tor sums amounting to S16,625. Sebr1ght
said tue Oniy way In which she could save uer.
sell from ruin was by marrying him. This,
Witness said, she refused To do, and meeting
Sebrignt a.onc Was by him conveyed TO the
registry Office, where Count Baiharney and
SeDrignt threatened her with personal violence
uniesS she consented To the marriage ceremony
ABOUT 10 be performed. SebrighL tuen forced
ring ON her finger and made ner sign tue regis
try. Witness said she threw the ring 10 the
Hoor ana did not hear the registrar read the
iOrm OF marriage
The regis trar aeposed that vi hen Mrs. Sebright
was before him she was agitated, but That she
repeated the marriage decorations without
any hesitation. Witness added that subse-
quentIy the lady threw the marriage ring On
the Moor, but signed the registry without hesi-
iatlon or demurrIng.
Lady Scout (Mrs. Sebrights mother) and two
doctors testified that the petitioner was COM
pleteiy broken down alter the ceremony, and
ut this point the hearing OF the case was adj
Journed- During the proceedings The court
was crowded with people belonging to the
aristocraLIc class.
Inc SeurIght divorce case was brought up for
preliminary nearing in LONDON yesterday. The
action Is brought by Mrs Arthur Sebrlght, VINO
dSkeu Id nave her MARRIAGE declared VOID
the grounds that she Wa, induced W consent 10
have the ceremony performed by tear and that
there mad Oeen no marital relations. The PLAIN
Till Is daughter OF Lady Scott, OF SouLhamp-
ton ana Is noted IOr ner beauty, and the ueIen-
dant rs = Wen known London club man. The
pialnuHs Irenus assert tnat the defendant,
coVetlng her private fortune OF $2UO,UuO, man
aged 10 lnvelSie ner i'll financial transactions
winch finally Tell upon her IOr settlement at a
To pay aud he compromised into escaping iuaI-
rylns the Defendant and permitting MIN TO
IiquIdate.
Al the hearing yesterday Mrs. Sebright's
counsel admitted the marriage, which he said
Was performed at the registrars last Janu-
AIRY. he cOniended, however, Lnat there had
been no marital relation; that the parties had
never lived together, and That tuere had been
no improperly in the financial transaction
Which caused their marriage. Mr.. SeDrighL
MAD induced the petitioner accept certain
bills and she had been led TO believe That u
marriage Ceremony between her and the respOn.
uent would relieve her vi the financial liability
lncurfeu.
Inc judge SAID ne thought that, under these
circumstances, 1t would be npO,sibie to nuiliiy
the marriage and announced that he would
near testimony with "a view to deciding if there
was sufficient reason To grant u divorce.
Mrs. SeDrlShL Testified that through her
iatnel sue uitu Inherited i'll her own name
SIoO,OOO, III addition to a reversion oI S15O,UOU
On ..e DEAN OF her motner She had met Mr:
SeDriSht When she was tut Is years OF age, and
the tcqualnsance had been continuous. He
proposed marriage 10 her after they mad been
acquainted short Zine only, but her mother
Occl:slcu To Deriillt ~.
bright continued mis- visits to the house, how
ever, anu Was received on terms OIL friendship.
ihaliy Mr.. SebrlShL induced witness 10 engage
herself u MN In marriage, unknown 10 .Ier
lhother. Alter this he persuaded her from time
70 Time 10 sigu oltS' of paper which he supplied.
Eventually witness ascertaIned that sue ilau
appended her name to notes and bills, and
mdue uerSeI lliole for sums amounting 10
Slo,62o. Writs were served upon her in ac.
lions iof THESE amounts. she then appealed To
SeDrignt He said Inc Oniy way in which she
couiu save herself from ruin was by marrying
hlm. hls witness Said, sue refused TO 40. Mr..
Seoflsnt next requested witness to meet nm
alone. Sue did So. he LOOK uer to Il pace UNI
known W her, but which she learned Was the reg
isLIy olnce. sue wished 10 leave the room Tue
moment she FOUND were she Was. Count Bal.
hafney, friend vi SeUrlght's, VINO was present
locked tue door, and Seurgnt said 10 ner tnat
ne wOdld SnOot ner ii cared 10 snow that
sne Was not actlng with Tree will in Tue mar
rage which lie Was about to have uer,Orrned
oe.~eeh them. tic then iorceu IA ring ON her
nnger ana witness threw IL OF aud again tried
To ieaVe Tue room. Souri- hL seized ner by tue
arm and iOrceu ner back AMI made her 81. n tine
register WlLuess SAID she did not hear the
Registrar read the form OF marriage, nor hear
niui say iiytning. IL was too upset and TOO
ufeaaiuiiy heightened" she declared ITO hear
any LII ny AT the time.'
Ine Registrar, being sworn, depOsed that when
MI IS SeDfiSnt was before him sue was agiLated.
out mat Sue repeaieu tue marriage declarations
Without any healtatIOp, ana Also the marriage
iorin wuen Seuri.nL Took ner nand. Witness
siuueu That subsequently the lady threw LIE
MAJ Rage ring On me floor. but signed the reg
AT ar az.
Lacy Scott, Mrs. seDrignt's mother, and two
oociors testified That tue petitioner MAS COIN
pieteiy DrokeN down mentaiiy aud pzSyslc;,ity
after the cerelnony ana Was always Lremuious
ana crying, lii constant terror.