DORD DURHAM'S DIVORCE CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 1985, 8 May 1885, Page 2

DORD DURHAM'S DIVORCE CASE.

The divorce suit by which'''Lord Durham sought to annul his marriago on the grounds that his wife was insane when lio married her, closed with speeches am and pro by the'-Attorney and the' ; Solicitor The former, furLadvDiirlifmi, asserted she was saue when'slSfciiaitied, but knew that she was going tffiough the contract. Suits for nullity of marriage" had been filed by the ..other sex; but this was the first case in which a man sought to quash Jiis marriage on.that groulfilpieadmitted Lady Dupam was shy; ' denied the. imputation that she had Bet herself on fire, and having analysed the 27 witnesses'" for the Earl, said 10 never sawher before her marriage. 8 were members ef the family, and G wero servants. The Solici-tor-General, in his reply, said as to the" conduct of Lord Durham in his courtship - he aubmitted'that it'was highly horioratilkHe argued that on . the evidence • something much more grave than shyness,- or - even excessive shyness, had been shown before the marriage. .'He contended that -' the burn at Cliffe was a very- suspicious " matter, and seemed, from the surround--" •• ing circumstances, much more like an act resulting from a suicidal, tendency in Lady. Durham's mind than an, accident. To support this view he relied not only on. ~ : - evidence given for the petitioner, but also • .on testimony adduced for the itoondent ■ as. to Lady Durham's deiiMour at Clifl'e., Sir_James Haiihen gave his. " judgment. His lordship said the. ques-' J tionhe had to decide; was whether th& ' •respondent was of sound mind at the. time of marriage, and clearly .understood : ' the contract she was then entered into', ' Authorities had been cited, but he did' not think there was any use entering into a consideration of them, as the case : ' must be decided on its ovajj&cts.. A contract of marriage did noWßuire very high powers to uiidcrstaijßßwas .;' to love each other to the end, ;jEn folfc • • bound to consider whether. bt^Hfcar-. riage her insanity had reaclietSHj a:-. stage that it rendered her' her to understand the -responsibilities--of the marriage contract. His lordship first dealt with the medical • evidence given in support of the petitioner's case. He referred to the opinions given by Dr ••• Duncan, Dr Playfair, and Dr Blandford. The argument, said his lordship, on the part of the petitioner, was that symptoms which wero observed in April June, and . July, 1883, by these were that Lady Durham was insane. Let .. us see what it was tliese medical men observed. Dr Matthew Duncan says thathe first saw Lady Durham on the 22nd of April, 1883, and he was consulted for. certain functional derangements, that to. his questions she gave no answer, or only said.." or •' No";. but giving the utmost consideration to the evidence, ' he came'to the conclusion that there was nothing to lead t<> the conclusion that thero was anything to prove her imbecile at this time.—Lord Durham's petition was there-' fored ismissed with costs.