provision for Teepoo and for her child (if she had one) out of the proceeds of the sale of his property in the colony. He refused, however, to be married to Teepoo in church, on the ground that he was a Baralong. He never mentioned the marriage to any of his friends in England, and there was no evi dence that he ever introduced or spoke of Teepoo as his wife; he called her " that girl of mine." Bethell was in receipt of about ¿600 a year — the rents of estates in lingland — devised to him for life with remainder to his lawful child or children. Mr. Justice Stirling held that the union of Christopher Bethell and Teepoo was not a marriage in the Christian, but in the Baralong sense, and that it was not a valid marriage according to the law of England. His Lordship said : " I conceive that, having regard to the author ities, I am bound to hold that a union formed between a man and a woman in a foreign country, although it may there bear the name of a marriage and the parties to it may there be designated man and wife, is not a valid marriage according to the law of England unless it be formed on the same basis as marriages throughout Christendom and be in its essence the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." One of the elements of a true marriage was present in Bethell's case — the agreement to live together as man and wife. The other, " to the exclusion of all others," was abstract; Bethell did not commit polyg amy, but under the Baralong law he might have done so if he chose. Now let us see how the judges have ap plied this definition of marriage in the law of lunacy. In Harrod r. Harrod (1834, I. K. and F. 4) the question at issue was the validity of the marriage of a woman named Harrod. She was deaf and dumb and ex tremely dull of intellect, had never been taught to read or write, understood the signs and gestures of those persons only who were constantly living with her, and was un able to tell the value of money. Upon the
other hand, the evidence claimed that she did understand the value of money. "She had been residing previously," said ViceChancellor Page Wood, " with a married couple, and must have known that they lived together in a manner differently from unmarried persons like herself. She remained up to the time of her own marriage perfectly respectable and chaste; she went through the solemnity in which the hands of herself and her husband were joined. A child was born in due time and not before. That shows that she was aware that she had performed a solemn act, imposing new duties, and she was constant to her husband during the rest of her life — a period of nearly thirty years." His Lordship held therefore that the marriage was valid. The following cases were decided by the late Sir James (afterwards Lord) Han nen. In Hunter r. Edney (1881, Ю P.D. 93) the parties were marriedonthe I /th of March, 1 88 1. There was clear evidence that the wife, whose mental state was in question in the suit, was in an abnormally excited and troubled condition on the morning of the marriage. She received her future husband coldly, at first refused to go to church and was continually rubbing her hands. After the ceremony she was with difficulty per suaded to change her dress to go away. When the newly married couple reached their apartments in London, she refused to have supper and said that she did not want to get married, and that she was false. She lay down on the bed in her clothes and for three hours refused to undress. The mar riage was not consummated. In the morn ing she asked lier husband to cut her throat. A medical man was called in, who pronounced her to be insane, and this view was subse quently confirmed by Dr. Savage of Bethlcm Hospital, who reported and gave evidence at the trial that in his opinion the patient was suffering from melancholia, owing in the first instance to hereditary insanity excited
