D-E v A-G (Orse. D-E)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 May 1845 |
| Date | 16 May 1845 |
| Court | Ecclesiastical Court |
English Reports Citation: 163 E.R. 1039
IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AT DOCTORS' COMMONS
Referred to, Lewis v. Hoyward, 1866, 35 L. J. P. & M 107
L - e against A - G, FALSELY CALLING HERSELF D - B.(a) Consistory Court of London, May 16th, 1845 - Sentence of nullity of marriage pionounced, by reason of a natural, incurable malformation of the sexual organs of tr " ^' those organs admitting of a partial connexion only with the male [Referred to, Lewi* v. Hei/watd, 1866, 35 L. J P. & M 107 ] A citation was taken out on the 13th of November, 1844, at the suit ot .Thomas" D. and duly served on Maria D., described therein as Maiia A., spinster, falsely calling hersell D., and pretending to be the [280] wife of Thomas D , calling upon her to appear and answer him in a cause of nullity of marriage, by reason of the natural incurable malformation of her, the said Maria D., rendering carnal consummation impossible. The libel, which was admitted without opposition, pleaded : First, second, and third articles. The fact of marriage on the 3rd of February, 1842, the certificate of the marriage and the age of the parties, Thomas D about twenty-six years of age, Maria D. about twenty-five. Fourth. That the marriage was never consummated though they continued to lire and cohabit as husband and wife. Fifth, sixth, and seventh. The various places of residence of the parties from the day oj the marriage, that they always slept together in the same bed and continued so to do till about the llth of November, 1844, when the said Maria A. returned to her father's house. Eighth That during all the nights they so slept together the said Thomas D was apt and fit for and desirous of carnally knowing and endeavoured to know the said Maria. A. and that she, the said Maria A., endeavoured so to be carnally known, but that notwithstanding the marriage was never consummated Ninth. That the parts of generation and sexual or seminal organs of the said Mari& A., otherwise D., were and are not such or in the same state as are the same parts and organs in women capable of having connexion with or of being carnally known by a man, but were and are naturally in a different [281] state, and that by reason of such the natural malconformation thereof, and other her natural l odily defects, she the said Maria A , otherwise E)., was and is incapable of having connexion with r of being carnally known by man. And the party proponent further expressly alleges and propounds that it will appear to competent judges (physicians and surgeons or others) on a due examination of the person of the said Maria A , otherwise D , that such were and are the facts, and also that such the malconformation and bodily defects of her the said Maria A , otherwise D , were and are irremediable and not to be removed or relieved by art. Tenth. That the said Thomas D. long conceived that such the incapacity of the said Maria A , otherwise D., to consummate her pretended marriage with and to be carnally known by him was the result of a temporary obstruction which would probably yield to simple remedies aided by horse exercise, and which he recommended to her, and in the use whereof she long persisted ; to wit, until about the month of June last (1844), wholly without effect ; that between the said month of June and the months of September and October last (1844), she the said Maria A, otherwise D, at the earnest entreaty of the said Thomas I) , repeatedly at intervals submitted her person to the examination and inspection of Drs Bird and Lever (the latter Assistant Physician and Accoucheur, and Lecturer on Midwifery at Guy's Hospital), and that upon their concurrent reports in or about the months of September and October last (1844), as to the natural and irremediable malconformation and bodily defects of the said Maria A., otherwise D., as herein above stated, the said Thomas [282] D for the (a) As this is in every respect a singular case, the evidence of the medical witnesses is given entire. 1040 D E V. A G 1 ROB ECC 283. first time disclosed to his legal advisers the non-consummation of his pretended marriage with the said Maiia A, otherwise D, together with the cause of the same, and that the result of such disclosure has been the return, to wit, eatly in the month of Novemher last (1844), of the said Maria A, otherwise I), to the house of her fathei it A n, and the institution of this suit on behalf of him, the said Thomas D. Eleventh That the said Maria A , otherwise D , has arlmittprl that she is subject to a natural malconformation, by leason whoieof hei pie tended marciage never had been or could be consummated. Twelfth and thirteenth The jurisdiction. Fourteenth. The concluding article. The answers of the said Maiia A., otherwise D., were token to the above libel, and were to the following effect ò- The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth admitted in substance the facts as pleaded, except as to the marnage being a profanation 01 a pretended marriage, and that it was not consummated The ninth denied the facts pleaded The tenth To the tenth position or article of the said libel this, lespondent, in answering, saith she disbelieves and denies that the said Thomas I), did conceive, or could have long conceived, that the articulate or any incapacity in fact in this respondent to consummate the said mairiage with or to be carnally known by him was the result of a temporary obstruction, which would probably yield to simple remedies aided by horse exercise. She admit& that he lecommendecl hoise exercise as condu-[283]-cive to her health, and in the occasional use wheieof she, in the month of September, 1843, indulged with her said husband, but &he denies she long persisted in the use thereof, or after the month of September, 1843 And this respondent further answering, saith she admits that between the month of June, 1844, and the said month of September or October, 1844, she, the respondent, by reason of not having had any child, and not on account of any natural or irremediable malconformation or bodily defects, at the eainest entreaty of the said Thomas D., repeatedly at intervals submitted her person to the inspection and examination of the persons articulate, the latter of whom (as this respondent believes) holds the situation articulate, but this respondent knows not of her own knowledge, or otherwise, and can form no belief or disbelief, whether upon their concurrent or other reports (if any such were made in or about the months atticulite) the said Thomas P for the first time disclosed (though she denies he could with truth have disclosed) to his legal advisers the non-consummation of the said marnage, together with the cause of the same; but respondent disbelieves and, therefore, denies that it was in consequence of the disclosure articulate, though she admits th.it it might have been in consequence of the said Dr. Bird having informed this respondent, as the fact was, that although her intercourse with the said Thomas D. might have been constant, it was not effectual in causing conception, she, this respondent, was at the time articulate compelled to return to her father's at A n by the said Thomas D , who shortly afterwards instituted this suit, and further or other-[284]-wise to the said article this respondent answering, saith she disbelieves and denies the same to be true. The eleventh denied the facts pleaded On the 5th of April, Dr Bird, Dr Levei, and Dr Cape were appointed inspectors, and sworn "to examine p.irticulaily the parts of generation of Maria I)., and whether she is capable of performing the act of generation, and of being carnally known by man, and if she be incapable of performing that act, and of being carnally known by man, whether such her incapacity can be so remedied as to enable her to peiform that act, and to be so known " They were admonished to deliver in their report in writing. Kepor t. "14 Lloyd's Square, Pentonville, "Saturday, 5th April, 1845 " We the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- L v L
- Symonds v Symonds (pet dis)
-
S. v S. (Orse. W.)
...to a petition for nullity based upon incapacity is, I think, shown by the way in which Dr Lushington acted in the well-known case of D-E v. A-G (1845) 1 Rob. Ecc. 279; for, not being altogether satisfied with the medical evidence that was already before him in that case, he actually directe......
- S v S