The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-07-15
HOUSE OF LORDS
Sc Ties CASE
Marrying Deceased Wife's Sis
ter Finally Is Up
held.

London. July 1.-THE great dc
ceased wife's sister" case. which has
been before the courts since 1907, was
settled finally by the House of Lords,
which dismissed Canon Thompsons
appeal against the decision of the
court of arches admonishing him Tor
refusing holy communion to MI and
Mrs. y. y. Ban!ster, OF Norwich, on
the ground that they were open and
notorious evil livers."
Canon Thompson. as vicar of Eaton,
in the Diocese of Norwich. had among
his parishioners NJ. and Mrs Allen
Neville Banlster. Mir Banister married
his deceased wife's sister. Miss Peter
son. in Montreal. Canada, on August
l.. 1907. having travelled from Eng
land for that purpose. The act legal
ling marriage with a deceased wife's
sister in Finland came into operation
on Angus; % of the same year, and
was retrospective. The wears refusal
to communicate Mr.. and Mrs Ban'ster
was after their return from Canada
in october.
Mr.. and Mrs. Banister obtained q de-
cision in the arches court OF Cantor
bury that the refusal was illegal The
vicar then sought to obtain Il writ pro-
hibiting Sir Lewis Dibdin. the dean of
arches from issuing his monition
warming the vicar to abstain IN the
future from refusing the sacrament to
Mr.. and Mrs Banister. but the iiv-
sional court by a majority refused the
writ. and their decision was affirmed
by the court Of appeals
The Earl OF Halsbury read the juds
ment of Lord Loreburn. in the court of
appeal in which the following pas
sages occur:
The lawful cause alleged in this
clergyman's responsive pleas is that
MIR. and Mrs Banistor. 10y reason of
their affinity being notorious, and OF
their open and notorious Capitalization
as husband and wife were. and are.
open and notorious OWL livers. so that
tho congregation were and arc thereby
offended within the moaning OF the
ruhric prenxed to the order of admin
istratiou Of the Lord supper or Holy
Communion in the Bool1 OF Common
Prayer
II regret that this plea was placed
upon the record 1t is inconceivable
that any court Of law should allow as
a lawful cause tho cohabitation of two
persons whose union is directly sane
toned by act Of parliament. and Is rs
valid as any other marriage within the
realm.
Il entirely concur with this judr-
ment Of the late lord chancellor" said
Lord Halsbury Yesterday.
II am unable to sec any room for
serious doubt IN this case" said Lord
Ashbourne "aithough I nm sure that
the appellant is solely animated bv
conscientious considerations The
ruhric I'm the communion service
which has statutahle eanction provides
that If any one who Intends to no a
partakor OF the holy communion no
an opon and notorious evil liver On.
nave done any wrong to his neighbo,-
by word or deed. so that tho coner.-
cation be hereby offended tho clergy
man may rcpel him.
Under the statutes OF Henry VIII
~" rage WIN a deceased wife's sister
was declared 10 be prohibited hv coa,,
law. and TO be illegal and vo,d Wv,
serious change was effected in 1905 h..
inc cos3n!ai marriages deceased Wiz
slster) act. which enacted tina, mar
rlages OF this Kind between persons
oomicled In "A colony where such MAJ
ages were legal. Should be legal Tor
dom N'Ns
In 1907, after many years discus
son s.,. ana controversy. the act now in
question was passed. Ii Is lnnossibln
10 conceive language more clear ana
unambiguous tnan is found in he
first section The effect OF this was TO-
make such marriage lawful for an
purposes. entitled to be recognized a c
.-cn "l'nin the realm or without. and
mat without stint of qualification.
am unable to see anv room for
aouot that the direct effect Of section
l was TO remove such marriages from
me statutes of Henry VII. and to
make the descript on of open and NO.
torious evil livers' entirely .napnro-
Pirate to those who came within ira
provisions. Such a marriage OF min
peachable legality could not he -
lawful cause under the statute Of Ed
ward vi" i-''
Lord Macnaghten and Lord Akin
son said they concurred in the anpcal
being dismissed. and the lord chan.
eeilor moved that the appeal should
be dismissed. with costs the motion
was agreed to.