Page:An introduction to Roman-Dutch law.djvu/107

 Rh MARRIAGE 67 To these two grounds of disability the commentators add others which at the present day are either obsolete or of diminished importance. For instance, the Civil Law ^ prohibited marriage between a female ward and her tutor or curator, or his son; and this prohibition, though con- sidered to be obsolete by Van Leeuwen,^ Groenewegen,^ Voet,^ and others, was accepted as existing law by Bynkers- hoek,* Van der Keessel,^ and Van der Linden.^ In the Cape Province the marriage of a guardian with his female ward requires the sanction of the Court.* By the Roman and Roman-Dutch Law a ravisher might not marry the woman whomhe hadravished.^ TheolddisquaHficationson the ground of differences of rehgion* are doubtless obsolete. of Cod. 9. 9. 26 (27), thought such marriages permitted (De leg. abr. adloc). See also ZypBuevs, Notitia Juris Belgici, f. 208. The matter is concluded for the modern law by the Placaats above cited, unless they are abrogated by disuse. For Cape Law see Daniel y. Daniel (1884) 2 S. C. 231. In Ceylon the rule has been declared to have no place. Robot V. de Silva [1909] A. C. 376. "• Dig. 23. 2. 62 and 64; Cod. lib. 5, tit. 6 (de interdioto matrimonio inter pupillam. et tutorem seu curatorem liberosque eorum). But a tutor might give his daughter in marriage to his ward. Dig. 23. 2. 64. 2. ^ Van Leeuwen, 1. 14. 13 and Cens. For. 1. 1. 13. 25; Groen. de leg. abr. ad Cod. vbi mup.; Voet, 23. 2. 25. Th. 74; V. d. L. 1. 3. 6. it is unnecessary to apply to the Court for leave [G.]. = Cod. 9. 13. 1. 2; Voet, 23. 2. 26; Matthaeus, De crimin. ad Dig. 48, tit. 4, no. 16; Eoht-reglement van de Staten-Generaal, March 18, 1656, art. 85 (2 G. P. B. 2444); Placaat van de Staaten van Holland, Feb. 25, 1751 (8 G. P. B. 535). Groenewegen, whose book first appeared in 1649, i. e. before the Placaats, says {ad Cod. 9. 13. 1): Jure Canonico raptae raptori nubere licet, et hoc jure utimur. See also Zypaeus, Notitia Juris Belgici, pp. 207-8. This opinion, however, cannot stand ■ against the express language of the Placaat of 1751, which saves the punishments and penalties of ' the written law ' in the matter of abductio violenta (geweldaadige vervoeringen). See V. d. K. Th. 71. Van der Linden mentions further the case of persons of any age who have eloped together. ' There was a strong prohibition,' he says, 'in Holland, against marriages between persons who had eloped ' (Placaat of Feb. 25, 1751, tibi sup.),' which was afterwards considerably relaxed whenever the subsequent consent of parents was obtained.' Reso- lutie van de Staaten van HoUand, June 26, 1783 (9 G. P. B. 375). The case of elopement is in fact covered by the language of the Placaat of 1751. But in this case marriage is not prohibited, only penalized, V. d. K. Th. 72. « Voet, 23. 2. 26; Hoola van Nooten, vol. i, p. 393; V. d. K. Th. 73; V. d. L. 1. 3. 6. r2
 * Bynkershoek, Qwiest Jur. Priv. lib. II, cap. iii, p. 219; V. d. K.
 * 1 Maasdorp, p. 19. In Brit. Gui. if the mother is alive and consents