New-York tribune., 1877-06-26
THE COURTS.
WHAT Is A MARRIAGEf

JUDGES IN DOUBT AS TO THE VALIDITY OF CERf
MOSY-rHE STRANGE STORY ORA BRIDE OF 10.
The Common Pleas, General Term, by ma
orty each OF the three judges writing opinion, sus
tans the decision Of Judge Van Brunt in the suit o
Mary Ann Davis against Samuel c. H. Davis, refusing
the PLAINTIFF divorce the ground that she had another
husband living.
The plaintiff was married at 10 10 william II. Vance
in Antonio Texas. Four years later Vance died. and
she went 20 live with her sister who married to
Mr. Taylor Her sister very anxious that the plain
tiff should marry j. NJ Taylor her husbands son by his
first wife, and constantly urging it, 10 view OF her
own -health and her desire that the plaintiff should
have charge OF her child In of her early death
Within six months after the death OF Mr.. Vance the
plaintiff yielded far TO her sisters enreates that they
drove into the Indian Territory TO the nut OF hai-
breed preacher and met there by j. VI. Taylor
ceremony took place. which the plaintiff at one time
called marriage ceremony and which in her testimony
she described in substance this: They stood mp before
the preacher and he asked her II she would promise to
be the wife OF Taylor and asked Taylor II he would
promise to De her husband She SAYS she dd not answer
whether not the hafbreed pronounced them man and
wife He had right to marry Indians under the Ter
ntoria law. she saysthat they gave false names ana
for going TO the Indian Territory was 10 AVOID
binding engagement; that she looked Oh tls solely ~
solemn promise 10 marry Taylor within two years
her sister should die WITHIN that time; that sne ana
Taylor at separated, and never lived together as
THE plaintiff subsequently became enagcd to Samuel
c. n. Davis, and boforr marrying him got divorce from
Taylor in the Indian Territory which was irregular or
at least properly proved the trial She attcrwald
sued Mr. Davis tor limited divorce, and Appealed ron
Judge Van decision that by reason OF previous
marriage she was not the wife OF DAVIS.
ChiefJustice DAILY nolds that there was yaid mar
rage between plaintiff and Taylor Her ADM siohs
ho holds establish Il ceremony OF marriage ana not
merely "A benOthal and his secret intentions canuot
overcome thai purpose. The mutual agreement ~
established and that IL enough, the fact tat inc hat
breed could marry Indians beng OF no account me
consent WAS shown between white persons Inc ldllure
0 live together affect the existence or the mar
rfage, which depends solely on such agreement. Hau
she set up and proved that she and Taylor by an agree
ment TO deceive her sister, had gone through ce emory
which both considered null II might have Defn dnercbt
The marriage with Taylor being valid tue marriage WIN
Davis IL void .
Judge Van Hoescn assents TO the ChiefJustice's
opinion holding that the plaintiffs own showing oi
the facts the marriage binding on Taylor, and
therefore well on herself aud that the intent To marry
deriyable from the circumstances outNelghs hcf DENIAL
Ofauy such purpose.
Judge j. i. Daily dissents from this view. He holds
that admissions at best weak evidence and ta' eF
testimony taken explaining them showed no intent 10
marry. bnt only ceremony which dd not amount 10
"a marriage that doubtful testimony Of admissions
cannot overcome the clear fact OF MAJ rage Nlth
defendant. Taking all her admissions rs ujc, she
Is in position vhich both Taylor and Davis are fr
leased from an claim by her either Al most, htr ad
missions Of former marriage are admissions OF lcS'h
conclusion which the detailed facts do not support