, 1886-11-13
AFTER THE DOODLE.
Pretty Mrs. Sebright Wants a
Divorce,
But the Court Says She Cannot
Have 1t.
The Testimony in Favor of the
Plaintiff.


LONDON, Nov. I2-Thc Sebright Iii
vorce case was brought up for preliminary
hearing to-day. Action is brought by Mrs.
Scbright who asked 10 have her marriage
declared void on the grounds that She was
induced Ia have the ceremony performed
by fear. and that the marriage has never
been consummated. The plaintiff is the
daughter of Lady Scott, OF Southampton,
and is noted for her beauty. The dc
PENDANT Is a well known London club
man. The p~lnintifF friends assert thai
the defendant coveting her private fortune
OF S2On,O 600, managed to i~nvciele her into
financial transactions which finally fell
upon her Tor settlement at a time when
she had To choose between refusing to pay
and be compromised or escaping by marry
ing the defendant and permitting him to
liquldate. AT the hearing to-day Mrs.
Sebright 5 counsel admitted the marriage,
which he said was performed at the regis
trar last January. lie contended, how
ever, that no marital relation had ever
taken place, that the parties have never
lived together, aud that there had been
no improperly in the financial transac-
ton which caused their marriage. Mr..
Sebright had induced the petitioner to
accept certain bills. and she had been led
to believe that the marriage ceremony be
tween her and respondent would relieve
her of the financial liability incurred.
The Judge said he thought that under
these circumstances it would be impossible
to %nulllfy the marriage, and announced
that he would hear testimony with a view
o ldeciding if there was sufficient reason
to grant the divorce.
Mrs. Sebright was called to the witness
stand and sworn. She testified that
through her father she had inherited $50
600 in addition to the reverslOn OF Slju.-
600 on the death other mother. She had
met Mr.. Sebright when she was but -
years of age, and the acquaintance had
been continuous. He proposed marriage
to her after they had been acquainted a
short time only, but her mother declined
to permit an engagement. Mr.. Sebrlght
continued his visits to the house. however,
and was received on terms of friendship.
Finally Mr.. Sebright induced witness to
engage herself in marriage to him un-
known to her mother. After this he per-
suaded her, from lime to time, to sign
bits of paper which he supplied.
Eventually witness ascertained that she
had appended her name to notes and bills
and laid herself liable for sums amounting
to Sl6,G25. When they were served upon
her she appealed to Sebright. lie said
the only way in which she could save her
self from ruin was by marrying him.
This, the witness said, she refused to do.
Mr.. Sebright requested witness to meet
him alone. She did so. He took her to
a place unknown to her, but which She
learned was a registry office. She wished
to leave the room the moment she found
where she was. Count Balharney, a
friend of Sebright's. 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. lie
then forced a ring on her finger, but wit
ness threw it off and again tried to leave
the room. Sebright seized her by the
arm and forced her back and made her
sign the register. Witness said she did
not hear the registrar read the form of
marriage. nor hear him say anything. IL
was too upset and dreadtully frightened.
she declared, to hear anything at the
time. "
The registrar. being sworn, dcposed
that when Mrs. Sebricht was before hin
she was agitated, but that she repeated
the marriage declarations without any
hesitation and also the marriage form
when Sebright took her hand. Witness
added that the lady subsequently threw
the marriage ring on the floor, but
singed the registry without hesitation or
demurring.
Lady Scott, Mrs. S%ebright's mother,
and doctors testified that the petit
toner was completely broken down, men