Marriage or Prison: The Case of the Reluctant Bridegroom
| Published date | 01 November 1966 |
| Author | A. H. Manchester |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1966.tb02265.x |
| Date | 01 November 1966 |
MARRIAGE
OR
PRISON:
rrIm
CASE OF
THE
RELUCTANT 131l.IDEGROOM
ENCLISII
authority concerning the effect of duress on the validity
of marriage is quite scarce and,
so
far as some
of
the early cases
are concerned, unreliable.a Therefore Scarman
J.'s
rcccnt judgment
in
Buckland
v.
Buclcland
is of interest on several counts.
It
is,
for example, both the first reported English case to offer
a
tolerably
comprehensive guide to the principles which are applicable in
such cases and
it
is
the first reported case before
an
English court
in which
a
male petitioner has sought the annulment
of
his
marriage on the grounds of duress and where the grounds of such
duress have been the arrest and possible imprisonment of the
pctitioncr.
The facts were that the petitioner, the twenty-one-year-old
son of an English father and a Maltese mother, was working
in
Malta during the period
in
question as a dock policeman. The
police charged him with the offence
of
corrupting
a
minor-
apparently on the complaint of
a
fifteen-year-old girl and her
father-and hc spcnt that night in custody at the police station.
As
he had already decided to go to England, a police omccr
confiscated his passport and cancelled his passage. Ncxt day he was
taken to court, formally charged and rclcascd on bail. Despite
1
The
rclcvant authorities arc
:
1.
Houso
of
Lord's
petitious:
(a)
Granted:
(i)
Miss
Wharton
(1690) 10
Coinnions
Jour.;
14
Lords
Jour.
683, 685
at
,
591.
(ii)
Miss
Kniglit
(1607)
12
Commons
Jour.:
16
Lords
Jour.
146. 14k
at
D.
149.
(iii)
Mtss
Turner
..
(1827) 2
Lowin
cro.cas.
1.
(b)
Not Qrantcd:
Miss
Field
(1848) 2
H.L.C.
48;
9
E.R.
1010,
which
also cites and annlysee the three abovo cases.
Coinliaro
tlic cases
of:
(i)
Qitlwood
(1638)
Cr.Cas.
482
at
pp.
488, 493.
(ii)
Miss
Wortham
(1846) 2
1I.L.Cne.
73;
9
E.R.
1020.
2.
Thc wports:
(n)
Grnntcd: (i)
Ifarford
v.
Morris
(1776)
2
Hng.Con.
423.
(ii)
Scotl
v.
Sebriglit
(1886)
12
P.D.
21.
(iii)
Bartlett
v.
Rice
(1894) 72
L.T.
122.
(iv)
IZussein
v.
Elusseiri
[lSSS]
P.
159.
(v)
H.
v.
H.
[19541
P.
Uj8.
(vi)
Parojcie
v.
Parojcic
[1959]
1
A1.l
E.R.
1.
(vii) Buckland
V.
Buckland,
The
Times,
Pcbriinry
'LO,
1965.
And
noto
Thomas'
Case
(1933) 175
L.T.
185.
(b) Not Grnntcd: (i)
Cooper
v.
Crane
[1891]
P.
369.
(ii)
Korel
V.
Korcl,
The Times,
May
28, 1921.
(iii)
Silver
v.
Silver
[l95S]
2
All
E.R.
G14.
Coinparc
Ford
v.
Slier
[189G]
P.
1-ilccidcd
on
tho
ground
of
mietalto
and
also the cases on uudiic inflwmcc.
(i)
Portsmouth
v.
Portsmouth
(Arches)
(1828) 1
FIag.Ecc.
355.
(ii)
Hull
v.
Hull
(Arches)
(1851) 17
L.T.
235.
Scc
also:
(i)
Lawless
v.
Clianiberlain
(1889) 18
03.
208.
(ii)
K.
v.
K.
(1021) 1
W.W.R.
1072; 67
D.L.R.
746.
(iii)
Hinds
V.
McDonald
(1032) 1
D.L.R.
0G
(iv)
Ilawaluk
v.
I~nwaluk
(1927) 3
D.L.R.
403.
(v)
Kecshemethy
v.
Maguar
(1962)
N.S.W.R.
647.
(vi)
Williains
v.
Williams
(1966)
V.L.R.
GO.
a
That is, tho
Houso
of
Lords
petitions:
We
do
not
know why tho lcgislntora
votod
na
they did and
in
any
event thcy may
not
have procecded
on
the
grinciples
of
the ecclesiastical
courts.
Sco
Templeton
v.
!Qree
(1872)
L.R.
P.
&
M.
420
at
1).
428
nnd
Moss
v.
Moss
[l897]
P.
203
at
p.
270.
3
Tlie
Y'inies,
February
'2.0,
1965.
622
To continue reading
Request your trial