The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-05-05
WHAT CONSTITUTES A LEGAL MARRIAGE.
Marriages ut Common Law and Marriage
Under the Statute. &c.

Under the statute. &c.
from the Cincinnati Commercial April 301
Thomas Trunne and others Granger. Paylor and
others This is suit for partition OF real estate tried
IS whether Rachel Paylor VINO claims 70 b. the widow Of
James Payor deceased and snch entitled to dover
out Of his estate is in fact n widow and whether her
children, who claim undivided interest IN the same,
are entitled legitimate hers to inherit this property
Il was commended behalf OF he plaintiffs that James
declarations Of both the latter named parties relied
upon TO prove the fact that the marriage relation had
appeared for plaintiffs offered testimony prove the
admissions made by Mrs. Payior. Counsel for
cd. The court permitted the te tlmony Of any ad
missions before the death Of James Paylor, and while
the parties lived together but held that any evidence as
TO admissions by Mrs p made after the death OF her
alleged husband would be incompetent Mrs Ashford
testified that she heard Mrs r. at her own house,
that she not married to James Pa Tor. This
the occasion Of quarrel between the parties.
On cross examination, the witness stated that she was
unable give dates She denied that she had stated
daughter Mrs p. If would dis
pnte that she the witnessl had relation to
this sam property she would no, make any statement
that would prejudice claim o. Mrs p In this action
The brother and sister of James payor also called
and testified to admissions made BY Rachel Paylor and
james Paylor during the lifetime of the latter, to the
effect that the parties married that her family
and portion Of his family very much mortified At
H. and that the OF some unpleasant feelings
aud difficulties One OF the witnesses stated that
with her brother, James Payor, he stated
aud that he regarded the ceremony OF jumping over
broomstck just valid. Testimony was introduced in
behalf Of the defence to show that they had lived TO-
gether Osensiby husband and wife for nearly twenty
years, and that this was the understanding between
hemselves that she spoke Of him as her husband, and
he spoke OF her his wife, and after occurrence in
which had been stricken down. the verge Of
dissolution was bleeding slowly to DEATH he addressed
her his " dear wife, &c. The family physician DR..
seven children, testified that he had any sus
picion, from anything he had seen Or heard that the
parties husband and wife that they appeared
TO live together as auv married persons do. Mrs. Pay
lor called to the stand and denied having made the
Arx~kD, INV ,Ne Tho
In the argument in support of Mrs Payors claim
urged by Mr. Snow that the evidence had conclusivsIy
proved q marriage Reference was made to the last
moments Paylor when insisted his conducs
could be reconced with other theory than tho
dren as firmly established in law as II the ceremony OF
marriage had been performed by The priest or magis
rate All that the testimony on the other sde tended
TO prove was only an acknowledgment on the part Of
Mr. and Mrs Paylor that the ceremony Of marriage had
never been performed by justice Of the peace or
mn ster; but there admission that they were
living in Illicit intercourse Tue reference TO the cere
mony OF dumping ovcrthe broomstick was merely -
expression the part OF Mr. PayIor that he cousdsgsd
Just good the ceremony enacted by ssatpfe
and that In fact he consde ed particular form a.
tended Is simple contract, and no intervention Of
magistrate minister necessary make It valid.
Tho only question is as 70 the intention Of The parties
whether they intended to occupy tho raasion or hus
band and wifeand that intention to b gathered from
their whole mode OF life. II they have brought up
regard thsn married-if they hase spoken Of each
other as husband and wife, and have occupied that
prssampion '' will ' BE- that ssey are married The
first presumption win be that they are married
according TO the provisions Of the statute; and
II that 10 rebutted the presumption will thsn bo that
they are living Together In legal relation, under con-
tract between the1seves thai they are husband and
wife. The questteas In respect properly i'm
portant To the parties TO this suit but In the Of ME-
Payer and her children Gil considerations a. property
Dssndss By Judge SaeS that Ssre vas
proof u marriage In this case II merely attempted
70 b shown by reputation amODg neighborz Would
the nsel claim that " these parties had been indicted
for adultery, they could not have been convcledY
Mr.. snow-I do cay distinctly.
Judge Pru6en- The law prescrbes the manner in
which marriages shall be made In Ohio-that the issue
OF lawful marriage shall inherit the property Of
But is Mrs Payler the widow OF James Paylerf
Certainly not The PARTIES bad violated the statute and
the opinion OF Mr.. Payler tho ceremony of
jumping over the broom-siock" did mot remedy
sixty wives. and say, "My opinion IS % and 90.
and care nothing about your staaute would the law
regard these women ~ his wivess Could be mot In
Hamilton county be sentenced to Imprisonment In the
county jail for this Illicit intercoursef Undoubtedly,
because the law says this 10 marriage" These
men could not be endowed, and their children could
not inherit Il only shc legitimate children could
inherit; the others could inherit from the mother but
same side with Mr.. SNOW. In reviewing the evidence
he alluded 70 the fact OF the declaration made By the
parties 81 their marriage. In acknowledgment Of
deed token before officer OF the law. In ar uug the
pscple In relation 70 marriages In Ohio cited authori-
ties In the various States 70 show that marriages
held 10 be valid and bndluv, Notwithstanding thy are
entered into without rites ceremonies aud the opn-
ION Of Chancellor Kent that marriage may be inferred
from continual rehabilitation. Counsel concluded BY
askng that the Court should enter Judgment nnding
that these parties were really husband and wifo Mr.
nden representing the opposite SIDE stated that he