The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1880-01-18
A LIE NAILED
WHAT Judge PECK DID SAY
Concerning Marriage Certificates
The Suns misrepresentation
Correeted-The vifIainous
sheet Exposed.

u EAptstu-
As mischief maker the Sun out
Herods Herod. With a spirit born of
nothing less than pure cu~ssedness, it
invades the realms of truth and at
tempts to turn fact to f~alsehood; upset
established customs and enthrone an
archy. Happily, however, the LEADER
is on hand to correct the malicious err
rors Of that unreliable sheet that oozes
from the print shop around the corner.
We feel called upon at present to
correct a wrong and injurious impress
sion which was given some circulation
yesterday regarding Judge Peck's re-
marks on the marriage certificates re-
corded in the county clerks office.
The Sun has grossly and maliciously
misrepresented Judge Peck entirely.
He did not say, on the bench nor in
the county clerks office, that it is
doubtful whether the marriages SOL
emnized I'M Laramie county are legal.
The case upon which the SUMS mis-
representations are based is that of
Minnie Handley vs.. Geo. w. Uandley,
an action for divorce. Among the evil
dence offered was the marriage certif-
cate, as recorded in the office of the
county clerk. The statute regarding
marriages, at least that portion pre-
scribing the requirements of a mar
riage certificate, was also read to the
court. This is contained in the COM
piled laws of Wyoming, page 40. and
reads as follows:
SEC. 10. When a marriage shall
have been solemnized, pursuant to the
! provisions of this act, the minister or
magistrate who solemnized the same.
shall give each OF the parties, on re-
quest, a certificate under his hand.
specifying the names, ages and place
OF OF the parties married, the
names and residence of at least two
witnesses who were presentat such mar
riage, and the time and place thereof.
Section IL requires "every person
having authority to join others in mar
IMAGE" to "make and deliver to the
county clerk of the county in which
the marriage took place, a certificate
containing the particulars mentioned
in the preceding section"
In glancing over the certificate,
Judge Peck suspicioned that it was not
made out in the manner required by
the above section, but said nothing
about his impressions while on the
bench. Upon going to his room, the
judge read the statute carefully, and dis
covered that the law requires three ell
ements in a valid certificate, and he
Immediately visited the county clerks
office for the purpose of re-examining
the certificate in question. He found
that one Of the elements was wanting:
The names and residences of the wit
nesses of the marriage ceremony were
not embodied in the certificate, but
merely appended thereto. The law re-
quires the certificate to be given under
the hand of the person solemnizipg the
marriage. Under means over (see
Webster.) The law does not contem-
plate that the clergyman, for instance,
shall write down his name and then
place the certificate under it. 1t is not
a question of position, but of evidence
and authority. The certificate must be
made according to law and the clergy
man a~ttests, under his handn that he
performed the ceremony, and that the
witnesses named were present. As the
names, ETC., of witnesses are a part of
the certificate, they should be placed
above the signature of the clergyman.
If the signatures of witnesses were
merely to follow that of the clergyman,
some could be added without his knowl-
edge, all of which would be illegal, and
this, the law wisely desires to prevent.
Judge Peck found that most of the
marriage certificates bore this defect.
Hence in the interest of the public
good he stated that not only were the
certificates defective, and hence invalid
and incompetent for evidence, but that
properly printed certificates should be
provided for the future. County Clerk
jeffrey agreed at once with the Judge,
and said that the defect would be rem
edied hereafter, so that in the future
no trouble will occur as to lame certi6-
Gates of marriage. For this the COM
munity has to thank Judge Peck, for
his caution and p~ainstaking zeal.
Our readers now see that Judge Peck
simply said he did not decided that the
certificates of marriage on record are in
competent for evidence, and not that
the marriages are illegal and void. He
did not say anything about the legality
of the marriage itself, as County Clerk
jeffrey informs us. His remarks were
confined wholly to the subject of
records, not marriages.
Hence it was n piece of the lowest
and vilest lying in the Sun to say that
Judge Peck doubted the legality of
marriages. It's article of yesterday was
a lie from beginning to end. We use
the plain and forcible word, lie, be-
cause it is the only appropriate term
for the case. 1t provokes one beyond
all patience to see a paper that pretends
to be a paper, say that a judge holds a
marriage to be void simply because of a
defect IN the record of the fact of mar
rage. The same train Of reasoning
would lead the Sun to say that il a
death certificate were defective there
would be no death. To all persons who
Il s.rrA .A.-- -