, 1873-02-02

authority Of the state, or Of any municipalit..
and cannot be disturbed.
----=
/ THE LAW OF MARRIAGE.
The decision which hns just been rendered b
Judge Farweu in the Nellie Port case is at ono
interesting and important. The case WAS one
which Silas ". Port, now dcccr7ed, had bee
had nerer been married to her according to th
usages Of church or statute. Upon his death
Eellie Port applied to the Circuit Cou1
| to be appointed Administrative OF eila
Ports estate, claiming thAt their relations dur
| ing his Life constituted marriage, and entitledhe
to the same rights law which she would have hat
| it they had been united by priest or a Justice
| Of the Peace- Judge Farwel1, after careful de-
liberation and thorough examination OF tht
| law and evidence, dismissed the bill. The dis
| mizsal Of this particular bill, however, did moi
| comprehend general decree thata man and WON
an must bo Joined together BY some authorized
person in order to cntitle them to be regarded
| re married. Incidentally, there we're significant
admissions that marriage could occur, according
to tho common law, without the intervention OF
minister OF the Gospa1 or GIRL officer; and, in
the course OF the decision, Judge Farwol1 indi-
Gated circumstances under which he would have
been likely to grant tho prayer.
The most forcible point Of Judge Far
wells decision vas the stress ho
1ai3 fha rF
all the facts clearly to establish marriage whero
no official ceremony lad occurred He held
that the evidence Of friends would be the strong
est in such a case, while such evidence was
wanting in the Port case. In fact, the principal
evidence that Siles Port has acknowledged the
complainant to be his wifo was given by four
policemen, who had been melted by his
relatives to arrest the couple for ly-
ing in open nanltery. It was brought
forward in the evidence that the relatives
Of both silas Port and Nellie Port were scandal
lied at the manner in which they were living,
and frequently upbca:ded and threatened them
for their conduct. This, Of itself, was strong
proof that there WAS not condition Of things
that would constitute marriage; that the rela-
tioas Of the man and woman were known by
those most nearly connected with both not to be
construed by the parties to be marriage 1ola-
tious.
Tho principal claim Of No1le Port was, that
there had been promise OF marriage duly con-
su1n1nated. Had this been established by eyi-
dence, or by such I corol1ary Of facts as would
leave no doubt of such condition, Judge Far
well iutimates distinctly tint such contract be-
tween man aud woman would be- good in COM
mon law. He insists, again, that tho proof must
be absolutely clear. It is not enough, in his
view Of the law, tha: they should say that
they are man aud wife; but when they
eay that they toill be man and wife, aud then pro-
coed to consummate the promise 90 sequence,
they are actually married. He could not find
this sequence Of promise aud consummaton in
the present case. The Supreme Courts Of New
York and Ohio have decided that future prorn-
ise does not Of itself constitute marriage. This
was evidently good law, for otherwise there
would be no ground for actions at law for breach
Of promise, which actions are held as checks
upon seduction. In this case there Was evidence
IS to the promise, and also confirmation Of CO.
aabitation; but it did not appear that tho one
Fas made to depend upon the other in such
ray as to establish marriage.
There were two things, more or less in con-
Lief, which Judge Facwen seemed anxious to de- [
inn Una uas fh,t tha-a ~ ~, @o =, :.s.~t
ceremony,-a: view that has been taken
y the New York Courts. Judge Farweu holds !
hat it man says to a woman, IT take you for |
~ wife, and tho woman says to the man, 81 |
axe you to be my husband" and these declara-
ions are followed by cohabitation, then there
'ould be marriage according to common Law. t
he SECOND point upon which Judge Farwe1l IN
lists isnot less important, for hc holds that tho
rdinary cases Of open adultery, men and women
Eavel1ing together and registering themselves
5 husband and wife, or. passing generally
8 married people, must not be- confused with
ao Intentional consummation which alone makes
marriage valid without the ordinary ceremony.
is for this reason that he insists upon the
lost positive proof. His decision shows that. ]
hlle marriage may take place without the
iniater or Justice, there is little danger ttat the
cases OF men and women living To-
sther as husbands and wives without
avlng celebrated the marriage with
'1enony can establish legal marriage
lations to tho satisfaction Of tho Inv. There
nothing, therefore, in his decision which can
'preciats the importance Of the marriage core
ony, while it provides legal remedy for oases
peculiar hardship, in which marriage will be
'netrued under tho law though no ceremony
IS occurred.
HAEE THE TREASURES SAFE, |:
The Chicago and Boston fires have forced.
,on public attention lesson of direct impor-
Tr