The New York herald., 1878-02-21
THE HYNES CASE.
Judge Daily Expounds the
Laws Of Marriage.
SIX SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
The Jury Declare Mrs. Hynes a
Lawful Widow.


ceased the property known as tho Madison Avenu ue
Hotel, OF which he died possessed. The property is
valued at $4,000, and II is understood that tho
diet Will also govern tho possession OF other real
estate In the West To the value OF nearly S20kOO0
The two sisters OF Mr. Hyncs, who have been in
possession OF tho property since 1874 and who wero
defendants IN tho suit, present court yester-
day, one being accompanied by her husband and the
other by grown up son The plaintiff, with her two
little boys, was also present, and accompanied by
several friends.
When tho court opened Mr. Joseph II. Choato
summed up Tor tho plaintiff in powerful address. in
which he rewewed tho testimony and placed II In tho
strongest possible light TOR his client Ho created
considerable merriment by referring to counsel on
the other side as "the and serious Fullerton,
tho brusque and chvalric Drake and the bland aud
childke Ballistiern Tho court room was crowded
throughout the proceedings.
JUDGE DAIys CHARGE
At the close OF Mr.. Choa,e's address Judge Daily
charged tho jury. After stating briefly nature OF
tho action aud the location and value OF tho property
sought TO bo obtained hc said -
The question OF the tltle depends on whether tho
mother OF the infant plaintiffs WAS married to iam
Il. Hynes before they were born Yon havo evidence
To show that on at least three contract OF
marriage, pursuant 10 what Is known us the common
law or law OF marriage OF the State OF New YORK, was
made Tho first, 1t IS said. took place ut No. l69
Cleveland street. In London The direct tes-
tlmony as to what occurred tho tina
We havo from the wilnesses Mr. and Mrs
Ardrey, VINO lived In that house, and with whom
the plaintiff res idcd ut that time. Mr. Ardrcy was a
waiter, and Mrs. Ardrcy had no occupation. They
stated substantially that the evening OF May "a,
lS7l there was a quarrel between William Hs and
Mary f. Hynes, the plaintiff and no was about 10
leave the Louse which he had been IN the habit OF
visiting littlo while before, and that they induced
hm to sec the plaintiff and make up their quarrel;
that they went up stars to her room ana that she
then complained TO them that be had kept tho
promise oil marriage TO ner; that tho deceased Mr.
Hynes then stated that he did not beiicve mar
riagc ceremony or III the mumbng of priests, but
that II she would PROMISE in the language OF tho
witnesses, To DO true and faithful to HIM he would
consider her as MS wife. 'and with that he prod uccd
aring, which he gave her, and which sho accepted
upon that condition" The exact language the w.t.
ness william Il. Ardrey ~ as toows:-"He wished 20
stay there u night, sine would consent without
marriage Mr. Hyncs said--I don't bcliove In a
marriage ceremony or the mumbltDg priests Then
no took ring irom his pocket and offered II 10 her,
and SAID that If she would ring and true
ana faithful to him, he would consider her as much
his vile as II thoy had been married In church Alter
u while sho consented ana to"k the ring these con-
ditions and he stay ed there all nigh,.p
''IE SPOKE OF HER AS Ills WIFE"
Now tno lrst question Tor tho Jury Is whether they
beIeve that the ocourrcnce took place narrated.
Tncro is no direct dispute on that POINT. The next
question tor The jury as to Inc jutenon OF William
L. hynes at the limo OF this occurrence. The next
lam X. Hynes aud Mary Il. Hynes You have heard
OF what that consisted; how they lived in several
places before thoy finally took their resdeace when
nc nirea house ior her III Kelly street. .'victoria
Villa" how he addressed before servants
or before vistors how ho aadresscd her
and Introduced her IN Paria, anu how no
spoke OF her after his accident, Tho testimony ON
this point ID very direct and very pointed. He spoke
oil her as Mrs HyDcs. He spoke OF her his wife;
and while there arc relatives oI Mrs. Hynes VINO tes.
fed to these acts, there are other disntcrcstcd wit
nessess about the truth oil whose testimony there can
hardly be a doubt, who spoke to the same purpose
And there is on the other hand the that
Mrs Hynes kept bank account during tb,s time m
the OF saunders There IL the circumstances TINT
registry OF the baptism OF hor two children made
during the time Ia winch the mother /. aescr,bra IA
Sau n M ~ futh ag Sanu N,,v
hyncs' act IN keeping bank account the namo OF
Saunders, there Is dircc and distinct proof and the
jury arc 10 say whether that is consstent her
claim to have lived during this time IN the open and
acknowledged relation OF man and wife with William
X. Hynes Tho circumstance OF the registry is not
brought nome to ner directly IL Is admitted IN evil
dence because IT was the duy OF tho cndcr tho
English law to mako such registry. But the fury
at liberty to nd was not authorized by Mr. or
Mrs. Hyncs II thoy please.
tho next question tor tho jury is tho question OF
residence or domice OF William X. Hynes There Is
the evidence OF Mr. Curtis that william X. Hynes
lived IN the city OF New York. He mad dwelling
house, Mr. Curtis testes, here In 1870 ana 1871 and
his return from Europe aiterward he fitted up "A
suit OF rooms IN the house now dispute, resided
lnd whether not William r. Hyncs ut the tlme OF
the alleged marriage testified here, was resident
OF this STATE aud whether no was domiccd here and
whether his sojourn IN England was temporary
merely Tho next question Is as To whether this mar.
rIage-lf ho entered into one with Mary w. Hyncs--
was entered INTO with the Intention OF eficcting
marriage under tho laws OF tho State OF
Now York aud win tho intention OF returning
next question Tor tho jury Is as to tho marriage
Claimed to taken place bctwccn the I'M tlos
wncn they were crossing the English Channel. You
havo heard the testimony that point 1t consists
simply OF the evidence oil Mrs. Hynes sho that
whe crossing The Channel she Expressed some doubt
or concern 10 Mr. hyncs about tncir union, and he
said to her. "You need have no apprehension because
crossing the Channel Iegallzcs our union" She also
stated that another occasion no said, "Ii you had
any doubts about the Legality OF our marriage re-
spect my promise; take you to be my wife," And
aitcrward when tncy got to France, similar conyer-
hul lhan IA aanv
my wo."
A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE.
require tho jury to find separately upon all tho
questions, IN addition TO general verdict which they
are AT liberty " bring IN. The marriage winch tho
plaintiff claims was contracted between hersclf and
William H. Hynes Is what s cal cd com mon law mar.
rage. II Is perfectly valid by tho law OF the State OF
New York al this dato, and valid England up to
the passage OF the nrst Marriage act OF 1854 IL Is
valid to-day IN Scotland aud III all legal proceedings IN
this State Is presuned to be valid marriage law In
every other country, unless there Is law
thcro proven 10 be different that country.
The law oil England declares tnat marriage IL invahd
unless performed in accordanco with certain pro-
scribod forms Now, although the laws on the subact
OF marriage In the various countries different,
there ~ In rcaliy no cieronce In tho marriage itsc
The marriage Ia tho State ui New YORK Is tho same
marriage IN England, Notwithstanding tho difference
Of the statutes tho subject. 1t tho contract be-
tween man aud woman 10 take each other
and vile aud no form and no ceremony add any
iorco TO that. The priest 1s sad marry people, aud
so is the magistrate but they roay marry selves
Tho priest aud the magistrate are witnesses to the
ceremony By the Inv oi England III y indispcn-
able witnesses 10 tho ceremony bui Dy the OF
state ANYBODY Is witness aud good witness TO tho
ccrcmony-evcn the parties themselves, IN tho uD.
sence oi anybody eisc, mat according our law
two people may mako this contTact nobody else
~ uy and ciher one oil thom ~ competent witness
OF tho ia0 by the law OF England II Is necessary 10
prove that marriage took place with certain iorms
and III the prossnco oi certain persons. Here,
wthstaDding tho common law, marriage Is recognized
by this state, II Is pretty generally ie that Is not
the sort OF marriage which wo would like 10 hayo
our sisters or our daughters 10 bo by, or
which We would IKE 10 be married by oursolpos
But am here to lay down tho law oil this State IN
respect To marriage. and TO saic II distinctly giving
all parties the bcncnt oi IT, l make this statcme ut
lor the purpose Of throwing some ight upon certain
portions OF this case. The common law marriage
without tho ceremony and witncsses--wthout, IN
other words, "a sOlemnizttion-s KIND OF narria 20
about which n woman would always have some doubt.
so that II IS htf enircy natural thing that pafn.
til should have had doubts about this, ami II would
not be ~ all surpsing sho repeated hen over ana
over again to Mr. Hyncs. We have the evidence OF
Mr.. and Mrs Ardroy as TO what took place between
the pIaintn and William X. Hyncs the evening to
tue Derby Day, ISL IL is pity, OF course, that Mr.
Ardrcy, although he occupied an humble position Ia
nie, ud not rise equal TO tho occasion, and when