St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-11-13
A DIVORCE SCANDAL.
Mrs. Sebright Claims She Was Co.
creed insO Marrying and W ants 10
Get e id of Her Husband.

Get Rid of Her Husband.
LONDON, Nov. 12.-The Sebright di-
vOrce case was brought up for preliminary
hearing to-day. The action is brought by
Mrs. Arthur Sebright, who asks to have her
marriage declared void on the ground 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 beauty. The
defendant is a well-known club man. The
plaintiffs friends assert that the
defendant. coveting her private fortune
of 100000. managed to inveigle
her into financial transactions which finally
fell upon her for settlement at time when
she had to choose between refusing to pay
and become compromised. or escape by
marrying the defendant and permitting him
to liQuidate. At the nearing to-day Mrs.
SebrightS council admitted the marriage
which he says was performed at the regis
trar's last January. He commended, how
ever, that no martial relation had ever
taken place, that the parties had never
lived together, and that there had been no
Improperly in the financial transactions
which caused their marriage. Mr.. Sebrlght
had induced the petitioner to accept certain
bills, and she had been led to believe that
MARRIAGE CEREMONY
between her and the respondent would re-
lieve 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 testified that
through her father she had inherited in her
own name $50. 900 in addition to a rever-
sion of $3.50, 600 on the death of her mother.
She had met Mr.. Sebright when she was
but Is years of age, and the acquaintance
had been continuous He proposed marri-
age to her after they had been acquainted
short time only, but her mother
declined to permit an engagement. Mr..
Sebrisht continued his visits to the house,
however, and was received On the usual
terms of friendship. Finally Mr.. Sebright
induced 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 witness ascertained that she
had appended her name to notes and bills,
and made herself liable for sums amounting
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, witness said, she re-
fused to do Nj. Sebright next requested
witness to
MEET HIM ALONE.
She did so. He took her to place IN
known to her. but which she learned was
10 Wi IN "a
the room the moment she found where
she was. Count Balharney, a friend of
Sebrights who was present, blocked the
door, and Sebright said to her that he
would shoot her if she dared to show
that she WAS not acting with free will in
the marriage which he was about to have
performed between them. He then forced
a ring on her finger, and witness threw it
off and again tried to leave the room. Sc
bright seized her by the arm and forced her
back and made her sign the register. Wit
ness said that she did not hear the
registrar read the form of marriage nor
hear him say anything. Il was too
upset and too dreadfully frightened"
she declared Ito 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 declaration without any hesita-
ton, and also the marriage form when Sc
bright took her hand. Witness added that
subsequently The lady threw the marriage
ring Oh the floor, but signed the registracy
without hesitation or demurring. Lady
Scott, Mrs. Selbright'S mother. ana two
doctors testified that the petitioner was
completely broken down mentally and
physically after the ceremony, and was al
ways tremulous and crying and in constant
terror. At this point the hearing OF the
case was adjourned. During the proceed
ings the court was crowded with people be-
longing to the arist0cratic class.