, 1873-01-31

Dc made clear and beyond doubt.
The evidence Of the friends of the parties
would naturally be the best in q case like this,
and the absence Of such evidence on the part Of
the complainant was at least suspicious. II
| there was anything to be said by those who
knew the parties in support Of the allegation
that q promise OF marriage had becn made, they
had failed to bring those persons forward. But,
ron the contrary it was testified that the friends
both OF the man and WOMAN, felt offended with
tho manner Of their life, made efforts to ter
inmate. it, and found fault with them; the
Wonan's own uncle found fault with her for
with him, and legal proceedings we're threatened
to be taken against them for living together
IN a manner contrary to law. II this case de-
pended upon, the proof alone of the promise Of
marriage ,taad tho observance OF such PROMISE II
tho decision of the Court depended upon the tes-
| timony Of those persons who were supposed to
know in what manner these two werc living to-
| gether, there WAS litt1o doubt that 1t would be
case there we're other featurcs OF the marriage
claimed that had to be considered; and there
| Was other evidence besides that Of the relatives
to which due weight must be given. It was q
gave testimony as to the fact that Port had in
troduced the complainant to them as his wife
four we're policemen. It did look Is though
Port, knowing the danger he was in from The
threats Of his friends, took every opportunity to
was living with WIS his legally married wife.
and not 4 pAramour, as his friends seemed to
consider her, in order that he might escspe the
consequences OF tho infrnctlon Of law with
which he Was charged It did not always follow
that because man said he WAS married to
4 woman, because parties called themselves man
and wife, that they we're lawfully married; nor,
If they registered themselves in a hotel as Mr.
and Mrs. So-and-so, did TINT fact make them
man and wife n ali rnun%rias rooa;ht-r
the case that many people travelled in each
others society, stopped at hotels, and were in
troduced into company, as husband and wife.
who were nothing OF the sort. Such
things were common al over the world; so that.
from the testimony which had been ndducod, he
did not think that there had been any evidence
Of q true marriage It only remained to con-
slider whether such state OF facts existed, in
the absence Of evidence, as would sustain the
allegation OF q promise OF marriage. He held
that such q contract between man and woman
would be good in common law, but the facts
must be clearly proved. It Was laid down, also.
as good Law, that If man md woman solemnly
agreed with each other to take each other
rs man and wife,, that is to say,
not that they are man and wife, but
they tciu be man and wife, and that this promise
are married. That the claim in this case. The
complainant had said in her evidence {and here |
His Honor referred to the evidence at some
lengthy that Slas " Port had promised he |
she could never get him to name the day for the |
performance of tho ceremony. She had also |
admitted that she did not know th.t she |
sa sr5ea pasde BY sna any tha promises h oha hat
side had laid much stress On, and that what she |
understood BY marriage WAS a ceremony in q |
church or by Justice. Rut however she might
look at the question, no matter whether abe con-
s,dered that she was married. or that she ,yas
unmarried, it was ministerial; il it was the law +
that they we're married, what he and she thought
of it Was of no consequences. Next, Us to the faw
on the point as to whether there is q marriage
~ in the future. In examining into this
question he found it extremely diff
cult to satisfy his mind as to whether marriage
could be made fully and legally in that manner.
decided that future promise is not a amarriage:
Parsons on contracts seemed to incline to The
Same opinion, and there was language in Rent
that would indicate that his opinion WAS differ
ent: Ho did not think, where his mind was un-
take to decide this NATTER especially as the bill
could not be saved on that point alone
Bat he thought it best to say that
he held that marriage did not necessarily ex~
iat because of mere future promise. Il the
cause WAS dependent upon this issue only, it
was quite likely that hs should rule against it. |
If such state Of things existed, it would do
away with the cause Of those actions ct law
which checked or punished seduction, and breach
of promise Of marriage followed by sexual inter-
course. But in this case this was not ali there
was of it. It was claimed not only that there
Mas future promise, but consummatlon Also
To sustain such claim, this .consummation
must be shown to have bean intended to be con-
summation by the parties. The mera isolated
fact Of sexual intercourse between the man and
woman, does not prove that the promise Of mar
1iage WAS being consunmated. If there was
promise to marry, IT,, for instance, one should
say to the other I take You for my husband"
and the other, = take you to be my wife, " and
this had been followed by sexual intercourse,
under this rule of1aw, It would MAKE marriage
But all the evidence went to show that the man
that be was not married, that he had
not up to the time OF his death done
anything, that would make her bis wife.
II he made the promise to marry her, and thero
was never anything done to consummnte, e1-
sept sexual intercourse; if he said they would
be married at some future time, but kept on
putting of the time; that looked as though tho
onsummation had not yet been accomplished;
md he did not think that they Were married.
Their friends did not threaten them because