The New York herald., 1878-02-21
vlie, tina, would make i. valid marriage in this


WHOLESOME snsERvAScgs
Hui this took piace IN England, where there are
laws requiring the observance o prescribed forms and
the ceieoralon OF aceremopy there Is no question
about the whoiesomeness the propriety of thuso
laws aud the courts OF this are win
u single exception which has been made 10 declare
that every marriage that contracted In Eng
land must DO contracted In observance all those
laws or else II will be uvalid That single exaent,on
rs where citizen of this State contracts marriage
there with the intention that shall be marriage ac-
cording to the laws OF this state and WITH ,he n,sn
ton OF bringing tho woman over mere hrs wife,
That question OF Intention Is very important IN
this case. Tue common law in relation 10 marriage
makes IFS appearance In court generally when 10
be used as u trap TO catch would-Dc seducer That
seems to be one OF It's highest olces 1t may ~.
pear In that way IN this case II the jury believe /.
not the intention OF the deceased enter iuto
the marriage relation with Mrs. Hyues at the
that no did not mean TO marry according 10 our laws,
they would have TO find IA verdict against her npom
tnat issue. This ig not u Case whore man intending
To got mistress stumDes into matrImony. That may
happen according to the common law of this State,
but marriage IA England In order to be good here
has got 10 be soemnzc or effected with The intenuoa
to make II good Otherwise leave them the lava
OF England, and conrac. without observance OF tho
forms prescribed by that law.
CROSSING CHANNEL.
1t the jury, however, after having terminated thor
consideration OF The alleged marriage Ia cleveland
street and the subsequent events, do not consder u
valid they must then take tho question OF the
riagc shiIe crossing the English emanuel Tins wsss
marriage on the nigh Seas The marriage law OF Eng.
land is conncd to the territory OF England; u doci
not extend over tho empire OF Great Bfltin. II Is
10 presumption tnat they wcro sailing In
English sup, there proof what
was tue nationality Of the ship and assumptions
are TO be INDUCED In with regard TO II. While on this
vessel, and outside the territory OF England. accord
ing to the testimony oil paintn. Mr. Hynes SAID, .You
arc my wiie, ana she repeated her Iroinse 10 hi,
and marriage took place there Now that ~ direcs
positive contract under tue common law. Nothtnx
can be stronger than tor say 'I take you for
my wife, ''You my wile, (" and havo her TO
consent 10 II In any way she p!eascs and II that takes
place where there are no contrary laws II makes a
asli iutl fpP
the jury in that matter is that Mrs Hynes did not
testify TO it the hrst time she asked regard
IT, The jury have heard her explanation as " why
she did not; they navo perfect rgct discrodt It.
because she did not make II the first time The
tract rests wholly upon her credbity, and the Jury
Is lObo the judge OF her credibty. AS TO the mar
rage In France, repeat tho same rue iha | hayo
laid down lor that made IN crossing Tho channel. IL
was valid contract, thcre being no proof OF law
tho contrury existing there
SIX SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Tho Court thao directed the jury, In addition 10 their
general verdict to brng In answers to Six specific
questions detailed In this charge. The nrst question
was as TO thc legitimacy OF the alleged marriage IN
Cicaveand street; tho second as to tho cohabnaiion
OF tue parties tho third as TO the domics Of itam
r. Hynes; the fourth, to his bona fuc inteuton 10
marry at that timo aud return to tho United States
the Eith Us to the question OF marriage the Chan
ne and the SIKH as TO the same Question IN Frauce
The jury were instructed that they toan tho hrs
four qNcstons IN the affirmative they should rcIdar
verdict ior tho plauiin, anu that they found either
oil tho last two questions III tho Affirmative they should
nnd u similar verdict
II they found the last two questions negative
were 10 nnd a verdict Tor the defendant. II they
found verdict for the plaintiff they instructed
10 give the rental of all the property during the tia
the defendants were IN possesslon aud tney found
u verdict Tor tpe defendant they were TO SIMPLY
dor verdict that tue children were not the logL.
mate offspring OF William Hynes.
AT Mr. Choato's request the Court added TO The list
OF questions Tor The jury scvcutbwhethcr tho otd
est child, having been born within seven months
alter me alleged marriage, was tue son oi the DO.
ceased.
Tho jury returned verdict for tho plaintiff Mrs.
Hyncs