Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-11-14
MARRIED USOEG DCRESS.
Hearing I'm the Cole
brated Scbrighf Divorce Case.

\ London telegram says: The Scbright
divorce case was brought up orprcliminaTy
hearing to-day. The action is brought by
Mrs. Arthur Sebright, who asked 10 have
Der marriage declared VOID on the grounds
that she was induced TO consent 10 have the
ceremony performed by fear, and that the
marriage had been one of form only. The
plaintiff j. daughter Of Lady scott. OF
southampton. and noted for beauty, and
the defendant is well known London club
man. The plaintiffs friends assert that the
defendant. covcting her private fortune OF
$780, eco, managed to invciglc her into findn-
cial transactions, which finally fell upon her
for settlement at time when she had to
choose between refusing to pay and be
compromised or escaping by marrying the
defendant and permitting him to 'iquidate.
At the meeting to-dIy Mrs. Scbrisht'S
counsel admitted the marriage, which he
said was performed at the registrars lat
January. He commended, however, that the
parties had never lived together, and that
there had been no imprOpriety IN the iinln-
cia transaction which caused their mar
riagc. Mr.. Scbrigtt had induced the pct;-
toner 10 accept certain bills. and she had
been led 70 believe that q marriage ceremony
between her and the re>p)ndent wOnld re-
lieyc her OF the financial liability incurred
The Judge said he thought that, under these
circumstances, il would be impossible to
nudity the marriage. and announced taat
lac would hear the testimony with a view 81
deciding if there was sufficient reason 10
grant divorce.
Mrs. Sebright was called 10 the witness.
stand. and testified that through her father
>hc had inherited in her own nimc $4,000
in addition TO rcverSi0n Of $4,000 an
the death OF her mother. She had met Mr.
SCbright when she WAS but fifteen years Jt
age, and the acquaintance had been con-
tinuous, He proposed marriage 10 her
after they had been acquainted but a
short time, but her mother declined 70
permit IN engagement. Mr.. Sehngh,,
however, continued his visits a. a
friend to the house. Finally he induced
the witness TO engage herself TO him
in marriage unknown to her mother.
After thi, he persuaded her from time
to time to sign bits :" Of paper which be
supplied. Eventually she ascertained that
she had appended her name TO notes and
bills, and made herself liable for sums
amounting TO sl6,625. Writs were served
upon her in actions for these amounts. She
then appealed TO sebright. lie said the
from ruin was by marrying him. This. wit
ness said, she refused TO do. Mr.. Se5right
next requested her TO meet him alone. She
did so. iIe took her 10 place unknOwn
to her, but winch she learned was the
registry office. She wished To leave the
room the moment she found where she was,
Count Balharney. friend OF Scbright, who
was present, blocked the door, and SebrIght
said to her that he would shoot her ii 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 ring on her finger, and
the witness threw it of and again tried 10
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.
The registrar deposed that when Mrs. &c.
bright was before him she WAS agitated, but
that she repeated the marriage declarations
without any hesitation and also the mar
riage form when Sebright took her hand.
He added that subsequently the lady threw
The marriage-ring on the floor, but Sigued
the registry without dcmurTing. Lady,
scott, Mrs. Sebright's mother. aud two
doctors testified that the petitioner wa,
completely broken down, mentally and
physically, after the ceremony, aud VA, in
constant terror. During the proceedings
the court was crowded with ar.>tOcrltlc
people.