MARRIED IN A TRANCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 March 1921, Page 6

MARRIED IN A TRANCE.

UNAWARE OF CEREMONY. THE WEDDING ANNULLED. A woman petitioned in the London Divorce Court recently for a marriage to be annulled, on the ground that she had not the slightest recollection of its ever having «taken place, and that when it was celebrated she was incompetent to contract a marriage. The husband at the same time petitioned for divorce because his wife had gone through a second “marriage” while he was at the front. A doctor who supported the woman’s case said she was feeble-minded and might have had an acute attack of mania and gone to church in a state oi automatism and been married in that condition, afterwards knowing nothing whatever of what had occurred. Sir Henry Duke (the president) upheld the view that the woman’s plea was genuine, but that the husband never realised from first to last that there was anything amiss with her. The parties to this extraordinary case were William Dudley, of Holgate Yard, Queen Street, Thorne, near Doncaster, and his wife (formerly Emily Whittles). Her second “marriage” was to James W. Shaw. WISHED SHE WERE FREE. Counsel for Mr. Dudley said that the marriage took place on November 29, 1916, at St. George’s Parish Church, Doncaster, and the parties lived together when Dudley, who was then a soldier, was home on leave. In July, 1918, Dudley received a letter from his' wife in which she said she only wished she were free and then she should enjoy herself. She said she was going to Blackpool for ten days, and added: “What a fine time I shall have.” The following month she wrote that she had someone else, that she had told him all her nd that he was taking her away. When Dudley returned home In November, 1918, he found that his wife had “married” a man named Shaw the previous August, and was living with him at the New River Inn, Marshgate, Doncaster. HAD THREATENED SUICIDE. Counsel for Mrs. Dudley admitted that the case was an unusual one, two ceremonies having been performed at the same church within two years with the same bride. His client suffered great pains in the head from abcesses, which formed and discharged from the ears. She was always strange in her manner, and had never been quit normal. She had threatened to commit suicide, and once went out of the house with that view, but her Brothers brought her I back.

Following the death of her father m October 1916, she began taking laudanum and sweet nitre to induce sleep, and her eonditllfri got so bad, owing to drug-taking, that she had to be sent to a nursing home. Z Joseph Marsden, vergef of St. George’s Church, Doncaster, said he was present at Dudley’s marriage on November 29, 1916. “The bride,” he said, “was very much as brides are- -shedding a tear or two during the ceremony.” She asked witness to keep the marriage notice, out of the church magazine. She was dressed in He was. away ill when the second ceremony took place. ■ Mrs. Dudley gave evidence that she had no recollection of going to the church nr of going through a marriage ceremony with Dudley. The President: Do you swear you did not go to the church?—Well, if I did I did not realise it. She admitted her signature was in the register produced. Dr. H. F. Renton, of Doncaster, said he first saw the woman in October, 1916. She was strange in her manner, and at times was almost violent. He advised her removal to an asylfim. Ultimately she was sent to a nursing home. While in the nursing home she felled one of the nurses from behind with a", fender and escaped. AUTOMATIC BRIDE.

In cross-examination, witness said it was quite consistent with her condition that she might go through the ceremony of marriage and know nothing about it. While in cliurch.she would look like a sleepy woman, which she always did. Her husband would have noticed something peculiar in her condition, suggested counsel. Witness: Not necessarily on the wedding day. (Laughter.) It was possible, said witness, that she might have understood what an engagement ring meant. She was probably in a state of automatism when she went through her first marriage ceremony. “Assuming the bride was an automatic bride, would the husband have noticed anything?” asked counsel. Witness: “1 don’t think so, unless he had seen her face daily. It is not the face of a healthy woman. In reply to the president, witness said it was possible that her subconscious mind enabled her, when in a state of automatism, to go through the marriage ceremony and converse with the church officials and the clergyman. BEFORE THE WEDDING. William Dnffley said he joined the Army in 1914, and Emily Whittles used to write him quite sensible letters. Just after the death of her father he epoke to her about marriage, and she said that she did not wish her family to know anything about it. He never heard of her taking drugs till it was mentioned in court that day, He arranged the marriage, and when he told her that it would take place on the following day at 9 o’clock in the morning she merely said, “All right.” When he saw her on the morning of the wedding day he asked her if she was going to be married, and she said “Yes.’.’ They walked to the church. Ho never was engaged to his wife, and lie never gave her a ring. He never noticed anything peuliar about his wife on (heir wedding day or since. She answered the questions in the Marriage Service “quite all right,” and after the wedding she said that she was quite happy. He left for France on his wedding day.

Sir Henry Duke (the president) said he was satisfied that Mr. Dudley never realised that there was anything amiss with his wife from first to last. There was no convincing fact, however, that she intelligently set about this marriage as a young Englishwoman would, and he came to the conclusion that she did not understand what was taking place. He found for her on that issue—on the question of nullity.