Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 24.djvu/683

Rh o o w o o 643 Breach of Promise of Marriage. The action for breach of promise of marriage is in some of its incidents peculiar to English law. In Roman law, betrothal (sponsalid) imposed a duty on the be trothed to become husband and wife within a reasonable time, subject to the termination of the obligation by death, repudiation by the words conditione tua non utor, or lapse of time, the time fixed being two years. No action lay for breach of promise to marry unless arrhx spoiisaliti8Bi&&. been given, i.e., earnest of the bargain, to be forfeited by the party refusing to carry it out. The arrha might also be given by a parent, and was equally liable to forfeiture. A provincial governor, or one of his relations or household, could not recover any arrha that might have been given, it being sup posed that he was in a position of authority and able to exercise influence in forcing consent to a betrothal. In the canon law breach of the promise made by the sponsalia, whether dc prs&scnti or de futuro, a division unknown to Roman law, does not without more appear to have sufficed to found an action for its breach, except so far as it fell under ecclesiastical cognizance as Izesio fidci, but it had the more serious legal effect of avoiding as a canonical disability the subsequent marriage, while the original sponsalia continued, of a betrothed person to any other than the one to whom he or she was originally betrothed. The sponsalia became inoperative, either by mutual consent or by cer tain supervening impediments, such as ordination or a vow of chastity. The canonical disability of pre-contract was removed in England by 32 Hen. VIII. c. 38, re-established in the reign of Edward VI., and finally abolished in 1753. In England the duty of the parties is the same as in Roman law, viz., to carry out the contract within a reasonable time, if no time be specially fixed. Formerly a contract to marry could be specifically enforced by the ecclesiastical court compelling a cele bration of the marriage in facie ccclesiae. The last instance of a suit for this purpose was in 1752, and the right to bring it was abolished in 1753 by Lord Hardwicke s Act (2(5 Geo. II. c. 33). The action for breach of promise may be brought by a man or a woman, though the former case has been of rare occurrence, and a male plaintiff has still more rarely been rewarded with anything more than nominal damages. It may be brought by but not against an infant, and not against an adult if he or she has merely ratified a promise made during infancy ; it may be brought against but not by a married man or woman (in spite of the inherent incapacity of such a person to have married the plaintiff), and neither by nor against the personal representatives of a deceased party to the promise (unless where special damage has accrued to the personal estate of the deceased). The promise need not be in writing. The parties to an action are by 32 and 33 Viet. c. 68 competent witnesses ; the plaintiff cannot, how ever, recover a verdict without his or her testimony being cor roborated by other material evidence. The measure of damages is to a greater extent than in most actions at the discretion of the jury ; they may take into consideration the injury to the plaintiff s feelings, especially if the breach of promise be aggravated by seduction. Either party has a right to trial by jury under the rules of the Supreme Court, 1883. The action cannot be tried in a county court, unless by consent, or unless remitted for trial there by the High Court. Unchastity of the plaintiff unknown to the defendant when the promise was made and dissolution of the contract by mutual consent are the principal defences which are usually raised to the action. Bodily infirmity of the defendant is no defence to the action, though it may justify the other party in refusing to marry the person thus affected. Where the betrothed are within prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity, there can be no valid promise at all, and so no action for its breach. In Scotland a promise in the nature of sponsalia de futuro not followed by consummation may be resiled from, subject to the liability of the party in fault to an action for the breach, which by 6 Geo. IV. c. 120, s. 28, is a proper cause for trial by jury. If, however, the sponsalia be dc prsesmti, and, according to the more probable opinion, if they be de futuro followed by consum- mation, a pre-contract is constituted, giving a right to a decree of declarator of marriage and equivalent to marriage, unless declared void during the lifetime of the parties. In the United States the law is in general accordance with that of England. The statute law of California and Dakota pro vides that the unchastity of one party of which the other is igno rant is a good defence, but it is no defence if both participate therein. (J. vf.) WOOD. See BOTANY, vol. iv. p. 100 ; BUILDING, FORESTS, STRENGTH OF MATERIALS ; also FIR, OAK, PINE, TEAK, &c. WOOD, ANTHONY X 1 (1632-1695), antiquary, was the fourth son of Thomas Wood (1580-1643), B.C.L. of Oxford, 1 In the Life he speaks of himself and his family as Wood and not a Wood, a pedantic return to old usage adopted by himself. A pedigree is given in Bliss s edition, 1848, p. 357. where Anthony was born 17th December 1632. He was sent to ]STew College school in that city in 1641, and at the age of twelve was removed to the free grammar school at Thame, where his studies were interrupted by civil war skirmishes. He was then placed under the tuition of his brother Edward (1627-55), of Trinity College; &quot; while he continued in this condition his mother would alwaies be soliciting him to be an apprentice which he could never endure to heare of &quot; (Life, 1848, p. 33). He was entered at Merton College in 1647, and made post master. In 1652 &quot;he began to exercise his natural and insatiable genie he had to musick &quot; (ibid., 53), and was examined for the degree of B.A. He engaged a music- master, and obtained permission to use the Bodleian, &quot;which he took to be the happiness of his life.&quot; He was admitted M.A. in 1655, and in the following year published a volume of sermons of his late brother Edward. Dugdale s Warwickshire came into his hands, and he describes how &quot; his tender affections and insatiable desire of knowledge were ravished and melted downe by the reading of that book. What by musick and rare books that he found in the public library, his life, at this time and after, was a perfect Elysium &quot; (ibid., p. 68). He now began systematically to copy monumental inscriptions and to search for antiquities in the city and neighbour hood. He went through the Christ Church registers, &quot; at this time being resolved to set himself to the study of antiquities.&quot; Dr John Wallis, the keeper, allowed him free access to the university registers in 1660 ; &quot; here he layd the foundation of that book which fourteen years afterwards he published, viz., Hist, et Antiq. Univ. Oxon.&quot; He steadily investigated the muniments of all the colleges, and in 1667 made his first journey to London, where he visited Dugdale, who introduced him into the Cottonian library, and Prynne showed him the same civility for the Tower records. On October 22, 1669, he was sent for by the delegates of the press, &quot; that whereas he had taken a great deal of paines in writing the Hist, and Antiq. of the Universitie of Oxon, they would for his paines give him an 100 li. for his copie, conditionally, that he would suffer the book to be translated into Latine &quot; (ibid., 167). He accepted the offer and set to work to prepare his English MS. for the translators, Richard Peers and Richard Reeve, both appointed by Dr Fell, dean of Christ Church, who undertook the expense of printing. The translation was supervised by Fell, with whom and the translators Wood has endless quarrels about alterations of his text. In 1674 appeared Hisioria et Antiquitates Universitatis Oxoniensis, handsomely printed &quot; e Theatro Sheldoniano,&quot; in two folio volumes, the first devoted to the university in general and the second to the colleges. Copies were widely distributed, and university and author received much praise. On the other hand, Bishop Barlow told a correspondent that &quot; not only the Latine but the history itself is in many things ridiculously false&quot; (Genuine Remains, 1693, p. 183). In 1678 the university registers which had been in his custody for eighteen years were removed, as it was feared that he would be implicated in the Popish Plot. To relieve himself from suspicion he took the oaths of supremacy and allegiance. During this time he had been gradually completing his great work, which was produced by a London publisher in 1691-92, 2 vols. folio, Athenx Oxonienses : an Exact History of all ilie Writers and Bishops who have had their Education in the University of Oxford from 1500 to 1690, to which are added tJie Fasti, or Annals for the said time. On 29th July 1693 he was condemned in the vice-chancellor s court for certain libels against the late earl of Clarendon, fined, banished from the university until he recanted, and the book burnt. The proceedings were printed in a volume of Miscellanies