Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 04.pdf/339

 312

court. So too we find that a marriage celebrated by a preacher in a separate congregation who was a layman was recognized as valid; ... we find also that a marriage by a popish priest was held valid; and that in the strongest possible case the case was that a man had been married by a popish priest, who by law had no authority to marry. This person, so married, during the life of his wife married again. The matter was brought before the ecclesiastical court, and the second marriage was annulled upon the principle that the first mar riage was valid. After the marriage was annulled, he was informed against before a common law court of criminal jurisdiction, for bigamy, and convicted. This seems to me irrefragable proof that the common law did not consider marriage, celebrated irregularly, as void." So Bishop says (i Mar. & Div. § 277 a) : "There were, in former times, numerous canons and the like, making it an offence against the Church to marry without the presence of the priest; but these were never construed to render the marriage in violation of them void."

is put on the ground that no ceremony at all is necessary; but the courts say : — "But suppose this act had gone to the whole extent of declaring that no other person or persons should solemnize marriages except those men tioned in it, such other persons would commit an offence against the act by solemnizing marriages, for which they might be punished, but still the marriage contract between the parties themselves would remain valid. During the commonwealth of England, Parliament passed a law requiring all marriages to be solemnized by justices of the peace; yet a marriage solemnized before a clergy man was holden by all their courts to be valid, although the clergyman was punishable. . . . Our act empowers an ordained minister of the gospel to solemnize marriages; but suppose a minister of the gospel to do it before he is ordained, can any person believe that the marriage itself would be invalid? " etc.

In Taylor v. State, 52 Miss. 84, it was held that the marriage was not invalid be cause the minister had not been regularly But still the question recurs, were they ordained. not voidable in proceedings to avoid them? In State v. Bray, 13 Ind. 289, it was held In this country generally the mock mar that " it was not necessary to the validity of riage would bind both parties, for here gen the marriage that the minister should have erally the intervention of a clergyman is not been a minister in charge of a church, or the necessary. The doctrine of Queen v. Millis rector of a parish, or pastor of a particular never obtained here. flock. But it is necessary that he should Bishop says of Queen v. Millis (1 Mar. & have appeared to be a minister capable of Div. §281): — entering upon the duties of such a charge, "Repudiated, except as bare authority, at home; according to the ecclesiastical economy of decided in haste by judges who had no knowledge his church, with the faculty of celebrating of the very peculiar branch of jurisprudence to the rites of matrimony." This was under a which it belonged; determined in the way it was, statute requiring the celebrant to have " the instead of the reverse, by an accident, — it never cure of souls." was entitled to any particular respect abroad, and In People v. Hayes, 25 N. Y. 390, it it has received none." was held that on a prosecution for bigamy It is well settled in this country, that if the defendant is not absolved by the fact that the second marriage was celebrated by the minister were such de facto, and the par But ties acted in good faith, the marriage would one falsely personating a clergyman be valid, although he were not a minister de this was put on the ground that the inter jure, and, Bishop thinks, even if he were an vention of a clergyman or magistrate is not necessary under the law of New York. The usurper. A few cases illustrate this. In Pearson v. Hovey, 11 N. J. L. 12, it following expressions of Allen, J., however, was held that a justice of the peace might I have some bearing on the question under celebrate a marriage out of his county. This I examination here: —