REMARKABLE STORY

Hokitika Guardian, 29 December 1933, Page 8

REMARKABLE STORY

GIRL’S VERY H-VLD CASE

MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE. SYDNEY, December ll

A remarkable instance of a “m-ullage of convenience” was before tho Divorce Court ’in Sydney this week when Marie Ellen Watson sought a decree 0 f nullity. She alleged that she was not really a consenting party to the performance of th e marriage ceremony with William Brice London, but wes induced to be a party to it under duress, by reason of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. She stated in evidence that she had married, the respondent to save him from prosecution for having told hi s employers that he was a married man so that he could draw the wages of a married man. The petition was dismissed.

The Judge intimated that lie would send the papers to the Crown solicitor so that consideration could be given to the ciuestion of instituting criminal proceedings against the husband in respect of false pretences and in respect of his deliberate fals’fication of the original marriage certificate. The Judge said that at the time of the marriage ceremony .petitioner was 19 years of age. There was no talk of marriage until one or two nights before the wed-ding,-when. the respondent told her that he was passing himself off to his employers, the Railway Commissioners, as a married man, and that he was likely to get .into troube, and might be sent to gaol for seven years. The parties separated immediately alter tiie ceremony >and had not lived together.

A BINDING CEREMONY

“I have no doubt whatever,” commented the Judge, “that the petitioner, though at first she demurred, went through the marriage ceremony knowing perfectly well that- it \v:s a marriage and a binding ceremony, a n d th a t it would make them man and wife.” The belief that the petitioner could have the, ceremony set aside within a few weeks did not absolve the girl from the legal, consequences of the ceremony. While he had the greatest sympathy with the petitioner end a strong desire to grant her the relief she asked, the Judge said- he did not see hoiv he could strain the principles- of the law which regulate the validity of such solemn contracts as’ ■ marring* ceremonies to- grant her that relief. It had to be conceded from her point of view that .-.the.,, case’ was a very hard one. Whether, she was in a position to obtain any other form of relief was v matter on which he would not comment.

CONDUCT OF RESPONDENT

“-So far as the respondent is concerned,”, said the Judge, “I can only speak in .words of strongest condemnation. He,, apparently, practised a fraud upoii hi§ opiployers, and when he found himself in peril of being found out, prevailed upon the pe.jtioner, who, I think, submitted -weakly to his persuasion.to go through the marriage ceremony, and he did not hesitate, bn tlie. evidence, .to .-alter the, date of the certificate to make it read October 7, 1926, instead *of October 17, 1929, when the ceremony was actually performed.’.’-