
    (74 Hun, 56.)
    ANDERSON v. ANDERSON.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    December 1, 1893.)
    Mabriage—Action to Annul—Duress.
    In an action to annul a marriage contracted eight years before, when plaintiff was eighteen years old, it appeared that defendant, who was pregnant by plaintiff, went to a priest and informed him of her condition. The priest undertook to induce plaintiff to marry her, and thereupon went to plaintiff and told him that defendant’s father and brother were determined and hasty men, and would surely kill him if he did not marry defendant. Afterwards, defendant’s brother told the priest that he would kill plaintiff if he did not marry defendant, and the priest again told plaintiff that he was in imminent danger. He thereupon married defendant, but never lived with her. Held, that the marriage was procured by force, and was properly annulled. Barnard, P. J., dissenting.
    Appeal from special term, Kings county.
    Action by Edward A. Anderson against Anna Anderson to annul •a marriage on the ground that it was induced by threats made •against plaintiff’s life. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The marriage was contracted on October 18, 1883, and the action to annul it was commenced in December, 1891. The facts of the case are as follows: On October 18, 1883, the defendant, then an unmarried young woman, and Mrs. Smith, who was her friend, called at the house of Father Guerin, a priest in Brooklyn, and they represented that defendant was pregnant with child by plaintiff, who had not promised to marry her. Mrs. Smith said she trembled for. the consequences when defendant’s father became aware of the facts. Father Guerin said he thought the law would give no remedy against plaintiff, but that he would go to plaintiff’s residence with a view to inducing him to marry defendant, and defendant assented to this. The plaintiff was then 18 years old, and lived with his mother and father, but the latter was ■away at sea when the priest came. He requested a private interview with the ■boy, and, upon this being granted, told of his errand. The boy denied intimacy with defendant, and was much agitated. The priest told him in the most impressive manner that the father and brother of the girl were determined men, hasty in anger, and quick to act where the daughter and sister was involved, and that they would be upon him like a flash when they heard the facts. He said nothing which the boy could say or do would save him from them, and that he would not be in the boy’s shoes for $10,000, as his life was in danger. Substantially, he gave the boy to understand that he would be-killed unless he married the girl at once. He said: “They [the father and brother] will not be satisfied with the price of your life. They will be on you like a flash. If you don’t marry the girl, they will kill you.” The priest said on the trial that he was very anxious to bring about the marriage, and said everything to the boy to make him consent. The boy was a Catholic, and naturally looked up to the priest, and was terrified at the threat that he would be killed if he did not marry the girl. He told the facts to his mother, and she advised him to go to the priest and confess that he had told a falsehood when he denied intimacy with the girl, and to ask the clergyman to use his influence with the girl’s family to delay action in the matter till the boy’s father returned from the sea. The same evening the defendant’s brother came to the priest’s house, and inquired if it was true that plaintiff had refused to marry his sister, and the priest said it was; whereupon he said he would go down to where plaintiff lived, and would bring him back within half an hour, or, if he did not, it would be because he had left him dead at his home. This was said, too, with the evident purpose of carrying out his threat. Just as the brother was threatening the plaintiff’s life, the latter rang the priest’s doorbell, and the brother was sent to another room, while the priest took the plaintiff into the parlor. Plaintiff testifies that the priest said to him that he was glad he had come, for the brother of the girl was now in the house, and would surely kill him if he did not marry the girl at once. Plaintiff asked the priest to delay the matter till the return of his father from the sea, but the priest said that the only thing for him to do was to marry the girl at once, as otherwise he would be killed. The priest, examined on the trial, did not deny that this evidence was true, but, in giving his recollection of the interview, states it somewhat differently. He, however, states that at that interview he gave the boy to understand that the brother would kill him if he did not at once marry the girl. He told the boy, if he had not come up at the time, it would have gone very hard with him; it might have been at the cost of his life. The boy said, after that, he was willing to give the girl his name. The boy was terrified by the threats, and believed he would be killed if he did not do as required, and so, to save' his life, he said he would marry the girl, but would never be a husband to her. He would go through the form of a ceremony, give her his name, but would never live with her, and added, even though the Gallaghers would kill him for not doing it. Then the brother was brought from the other room, and he told the plaintiff that it was well for him that he had taken the corase he did; otherwise, hislifewould be in danger. Then the brother went for the bishop’s dispensation and to get his sister. When the brother came back, it was proposed by Mrs. Smith, who was present, that he should shake hands with plaintiff, but he declined to do so, saying that it was well for him that he had consented to marry the sister, for, if he had not, it would have gone- hard with him. Then the-ceremony was performed, the plaintiff being greatly terrified, and acting solely through the fear of his life. The evidence of the brother on the trial was that the plaintiff then had pressure brought to bear on him to go and see the defendant’s father. Pie said he was afraid to go, lest they might do him some harm, and the brother said he would protect him, and he went. Defendant’s father then said to plaintiff that it was well for him he had doñeas he did, for otherwise it would have gone hard with him. He afterwards told the defendant that he would have killed Anderson if he had not married her. They wanted him to live at their home, and said he could have the-best room in the house, but he declined, saying that if they would let him go he would come back the next Tuesday night, and they did let him go, but he never came back. His demeanor and conduct throughout the whole transaction was that of one who was being forced and compelled by fear of his life to undergo a ceremony to which he gave no real consent. The parties; never saw each other since the night of the ceremony,.
    
      Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.
    Wm. J. Carr, for appellant.
    Chas. J. Patterson, for respondent.
   PRATT, J.

The only questions being of fact, and the trial judge •having seen the witnesses and personally heard the testimony, a very strong preponderance of evidence against the decisions would be required" to enable us to interfere upon appeal. We do not think it can be said that the judgment is unsupported, by any testimony. The trial judge believed the evidence of the plaintiff, and we cannot say he was wrong in so doing. The judgment does not reflect upon the appellant, who was not a party to the duress. Judgment affirmed, without costs.

DYKMAN, J., concurs.

BARNARD, P. J.,

(dissenting.) .The parties were married on the 18th of October, 1883. The papers show that the plaintiff was the putative father of an illegitimate child to be born of the defendant. The parties, and the families of the parties, were both Roman Catholics. The defendant made her condition known to the priest, and he saw the plaintiff. He denied his offense, and the priest told him that the father and brother of the .girl were resolute, fierce men, who would avenge the destruction of her honor. Subsequently, the plaintiff confessed his guilt to the priest, and said .he was willing to marry the defendant and make the child legitimate, but that he would not live with her. They were married. The proof of threats is very slight, and is not unusual in cases similar to the one under consideration. There is apparent no real threat which was at all likely to result in violence. Passionate words would be natural, where the social wrong was so great, from ’father and brother. The consent was at last given from a sense • .of duty, and all threats defied beyond legitimatizing the unborn .child. The lapse of time is so great that equity should not sever the bond. It was over eight years after the marriage that the -complaint was made. The judgment should be reversed, .with costs, and a new trial granted.  