Paris Tribunal Of First I...
Wv hen divorce was abolished in 1816, the project of a lawr, which was intended to regulate the efrect on t?iose cases to which divorces had bcen already pronounced, was przsented to the Chamber of Peers and adopted by it. The second clause of this project is in the following terms :" Those who have been already divorced, and who are not now married, are at liberty to marry again; but every other marriage is interdicted till after the decease of one of the parties." The same project was presented to the Chamber of Deputies; a Chairman was named, and a day fixed for discussion ; but the Ses- sion was so far advanced at the time, that it was not again brought forward. The question which came before the Court for its decision to.day, was, not whether parties already divorccd could contract a new mar- riage,; ut in conseqs%ence of the non-adoptien of the projected law, the difficulty was increased by the circumnstance of the divorced per- son who wished to marry again, being a foreigner, and also by the dissolution of the first marriage having bcen pronounced subsequent to the law abolishing divorce. Mr. Ferey briefly related the circumstances. A young Irish lady, named Alaria Bryan, was married in her owvn country to Sir John lilley Doyle, a Colonel in the service of his Britannic Majesty. It appears that this was an unhappy union; a divorce was pro- nounced on the 28th of February, 18-21, by the fJonsistorial Court of Dublin. This.divorce was confirmed On the 1st of July 1822, by the King, with the advice of the Ho uses of Lords and Commons. Mladame Bryan, after this divorce, In vhich it was formally expressed that either of the parties were at liberty to marry henceforward if they pleased, came to France. Having been cap- tivated with the person and talent of All. Mlansion, an historical painter, both presented themselves before Al. Crette, Mayor of the third Arrondisspmcnt, and requested that officer to proceed to tie celebration of the marriage. I\i. Crette, having been atprised of thc existence of a divorce, referred them to the King's P.rocurcur- General, wvho, unvwilling to make any decision upon the subject himself, advise(d them, in so important a matter, to take the judg- ment of the Court. Al. Ferey contended that in law M1adanie Bryan, an Irish lady, was in France entirely at her own disposal, and oughlt therefore to be considered as perfectly free. He com- pared this case to that of a French lady, divorced before the law of 1816, and who, according to that law, would still have the right ofmarr;ing aain during the lifetime of her former husband, since the project of law which would interdict that power war rejected. The King's Advocate, after complimenting the M4ayer upon his prudence discussed the question of statut perjoJaaei in all its rela. tions, and contended that Madame Bryan, though divorced both in England and Ireland, could not mtarry in France to the prejudice of a former union, which our laws looked upon as henceforward indis- soluble. He further gave it as his opinion, that those who were di- vorced before 1816 could not marry agi- The judgnment of the Court was deferred to Saturday, the 31st of July. PARIS TRIBUNAL OF FIRST INSTANCE. CASE OF lIVORC-E.