The Sumter banner. [volume] (Sumterville, S.C.) 1846-1855, 1850-09-18
Answefs to a corres,,onaont.s7 :

"0As W NoKteSpOndant, n2Ss
Marriage in this Slate is, in the eye Of the
law, q purely cirN contract. There Is no
law regulating the manner IN which, or tho
persons by whom, Il shallb be celebrated. Ii
is, however, a universal custom, and ii
would not be considered decent to depart
from that custom, for il to bo celebrated by
priest, or clergyman, duly authorized by
the Church to which he belongs, or by a
magistrate but we have no doubt that a
marriage celebrated by any person, or con-
tractcd by the parties themselves, by words
in the presence Of witnesses, or by writing,
would bo valid.
The Legislature of this State have never
exercised the power to grant Divorces
Whether they have that power or not s an
unsettled point; but the. better opinion would
seem to be that they have it not. Ry the
common law Of this State marriages are in
dissoluble the U. S. Constitution provides
''that no State shall pass any law imparing
tho obligation of contrncts." Itwoud seem
therefore, that nm Act of the Legislature
dissolving contract indissoluble by law,
without the consent of the parties, would be
unconstitutional; and it may well be qucs-
toned whether the wife has the legal capacity
to consent. 1t would doubtless be compe-
tent for the Legislature to puss an Act pro-
vid'ng that future marriages might be dis
solved, by the Legislature or by the Courts,
but until such MI Act is passed, it may well
be questioned whether South Carolina
marriage can be dissolved by any human
power. .
What You say about the Statutes at large
is true The index is very unsa,isfactory
anl sovcrnl important Statutes arc omitted
in the body Of the work. We will mention
some that have come under our observation
The iith section of tho Act of I7i5 (3 stat.
G6s) is omitted II Is true at the foot Of the
Act it is said "The original not 10 be found
The above is copied from Grimke y. 2Ol."-
The lth section is very important ono.
1t is to bc found in | Brew. Dig. 39g, and is
recognized rs law in the case OF Iruckin.
fuss Us. Heath Hill, Ch 1S2. 1t is n
mistake to say that that section was "re-cn-
acted by y. a. of 18th March, 1889" Il
was rc-cnactGd SO far rs it related to 'exe-
cutors and adininistrn:ors:'' but tho Ilth
section Of the Act Of l745 is the only law
OF force which gives commissions to 'scuar-
| dams and trustees
The important Act Of 17I7 (p. L. ol3)
which provides, infer 0lin, that 10 ca. sa
s'ail issue aginst defendant for any deb.
or damages under E2O current money; and
the equally important Act of 1863 P. L.
26S) entitled AN Act for establishing
Courts, building Goals" &c, are both omit
ted in the Statutes at Large. In relation 10
the Act Of 1869, ii may bc observed, that.
Ill the 7tii vol. oitfe Statutes at Large, p. 1877
will be sonnd al Act Of l76s, the title and
provisions of which, though almost iden,i.
cal with the Act Of 17G9. are not, IN some
important particulars, the same :: For in
stance, the Act of l7G5, (20th scction) sim
ply pro''dcs that no persc:l shall be held to
bail on any writ Of capias al rsspondendt.n,
Tor debt, unless an affidavit, shall be made"
&c, whereas the Act of 1765, which is tho
Act oi force, provides (scc. 81, p. l.. 273)
"thnt no person (cxcepting transient persons)
shall hereafter be held to bail, for any sum
less than ESQ current money; and no per
IA
son shall be held 10 bail on any wr, OF capias
at respoadenanm for debt unless an affidavit
shall be made &c
we have no nisi prius Courts in South
Carolina. Our circuit Courts are some
times, but very improperly, so called.
In Chancery there nrc no Terms The
Court is presumed to be always open, and
the Chance!lors hold sutings in the different
Districts.