The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1880-12-16
Queer Weddings.

Very recent volumes of court reports
bring new and curious illustrations of
the want of some uniform rule through
out the States as to what shall be a
valid marriage ceremony. In Worces-
ter, Mass, couple assumed to marry
themselves after the fashion of
''Friends" The ceremony occurred at
the close of public religious meeting.
The preacher came down from the pull
pit and took his stand in front of the
pews. The lady came forward from
her seat and stood by his side. They
joined hands and declared that they
took each other for wife and for hus-
band, respectively. The bridegroom
then offered prayer. Both intended
lawful wedding. Much less than this
has been, in New York, declared a per-
feet marriage. But when this couple
were prosecuted for living together
without having been married, the Su-
preme Court said that, though they
might be excused for the past in view
of their ignorance and good intention,
yet they were mistaken in suppOsing
that their ceremony had any validity.
There is a special exception in case Of
persons conscientiOusly belonging to
the Society of Friends; but all other
persons must, in Massachusetts, be
married by minister or a magistrate.
A story from West Virginia shows
justice burlesqued; yet the decision was
probably unavoidable under the con-
fused laws of the time. A scamp waa
placed upon trial for having married
Clara in West Virginia. while Fannie,
whom he had not long before married
in Wisconsin, was still living, and un-
divorced. The two marriages were
proved easily enough. but defendants
counsel then offered to show that about;
q year and half before the man mar
riage to Fannie he had, in Ohio, mar
ried Sarah, who was still living when
he afterward married Fannie, but who,s
as soon as she heard of this marriage,
procured divorce. The lawyer ar
gued that his client was never lawfully
married to Fannie, on account of the
previous marriage with Sarah, and that
Sarah's divorce set him at liberty to
marry Clara, as far as Sarah was con-
cerned. And the court decided that
the defense was good. True, the mar
riage with Fannie was bigamy; but
the court of West Virginia could not
take any notice of that, because it had
occurred in Wisconsin. Besides, it was
not the offense charged in the indict-
ment, and the statute of limitations had
like these Lothario was set free.
Tennessee supplies a new instance'of
tho difficulty respecting ''mixed mar
riages." Every one knows that several
of the States have explicitly forbidden
these; in few others they are distinct
ly permitted. There is no great diff
Guilty in spplying either law when only
one State is involved. But in the Ten
nessee case-and the same thing has
occurred il one or two previous instan-o
ces-a white person and a negro were
welded in State where such inter-
marriage was allowed, but afterward
removed to Tennessee, where the law
sternly forbids it. The courts have q
maxim that marriage valid in the
State where it is made must be sustained
everywhere. But the Tennessee court
refused to follow this rule. 1t said it
applies only when the question is upon
the regularity of the ceremony. It
does not oblige one State to tolerate
marriages between persons whom its
laws forbid to espouse each other in
any manner. The Supreme Court at
Washington is understood to have q
cause on its docket involving much the
and perplexing question it is.-NeD
York Times.
There is a great deal of comfort In
being saleswoman. Witness the case
of her who the other day sold six yards
of trimming to customer only to see
her come back in half an hour with the
statement, '.My dressmaker says that
it is too heavy for gown" and the
request, Can you change it?' Three
times before set of sun did that custom
IL Il yl,<>V~
stock of trimming in order to find
something to suit the fastidious dress
maker. No wonder some women's
clothes show great unity of design, and
no wonder that some saleswomen are
thin and pallid. .4a..t5 ~.
Bad Custom.