Shopping done ... I've time now for another look.
A resumeé rather than word for word translation:
According to the sworn statements of the witnesses - the (female) patient, the mother and the sister, the civil marriage took place on 16th. Nov. 1912 in Offenbach on the explicitly expressed agreement, that a a church marriage would follow. The defendant Heinrich Schaub denies this in his statement from 14th March 1920, but this cannot be taken into account because
a) he has refused to be sworn in (not taken under oath)
b) he is not willing to make a statement about the marriage relationship to his wife
c) due to head wounds (shot in the head) his memory is "very limited" and
d) into the bargain, he doesn't actually know, whether he was married in a church.
The brother's testimony can be ignored, as they don't seem to have to him about it .
Perhaps because he was often absent, and was also a 'frivolous' person.
The Wife didn't consider the civil marriage to be a real marriage, and considered herself to be living in the sin of concubinage.
:
The patient hadn't intended to marry on the 16th Nov "hic et nunc" [here and now].
The unanimous vote is therefore
matrimonium fuisse nullum ab defeetum consensus
[Google translation: Marriage was no consent from defeetum]
Maybe someone with latin kowledge will translate this better, it's probably a "boiler-plate" statement for such cases.
Bob