The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1882-02-16
A Pernlaxing Wedding.

| u % PAoA4A6 "0pu1ASs
inlay q man marry his wife's deceas
ed sister," was a question which useG
to be put, as a hoax, to college fresh.
men, by ''experts in the junior class
and the tyro would often argue at good
ISLANDERS revealed the trick in the query.
''May man marry his deceased wife's
sister?' is the form in which the inquiry
is raised by late chronicles.
| A recent story from Long Island is
that wife and mother, enfeebled by
disease, and believing that she was soon
for the future of her little ones by pro-
| noting match between her husband
and her sister. The invalid no doubt
had read extensively in the cautionary
literature relating to step-mothers, and
could not bear TO leave the selection OF
| one for her babes to chance--or, what is
much the same thing, the wilower' S
choice. Her sister, the children's low
ing. aunt, would be, She was sure, still
more loving asa mother. She adjureJ
the sister and the husband to give her
the comfort of seeing them solemnly
married before she should close her ey e.;
lpon the world. They at length acced
ell; a wedding was held; whereupon.
being relieved in mind, she straishtway
began to recover in body, and at last :i.:-
counts was much better than had been
expected. In short, she is getting
well. And the question in the neigh
borhood now is, What about that we'd
dingp s., sr ioga fjs5- t.r
II .goes without saying that this
ceremony was no marriage. The con-
sent or request of the wife could not
take the place of divorce, or dispense
with the law which forbids a marriage
by one having wife living. 1t is not
clear that it would even warrant a
prosecution for bigamy. True, here was
a married man formally taking another
wife. Every outward aspect of bigamy
is presented. But judges have a maxim
that there is no crime where there is no
criminal intent; and a jury would per-
haps be told that if they believed that
the husband and the sister did not intend
or suppose they were contracting pres
ent marriage, but only meant by the
ceremony to attest in the most binding
manner to the dying woman that they
were to be married as soon as they law
fully might, there was no bigamy. The.
case, though very earnest one, would
probably be ikened in law to mock
marriage, such as is sometimes per-
formed in jest at an evening entertain
ment. f.4f
What is better worth knowing is that
serious questions have arisen whether
engagements to marry, made while one
of the parties is already married, are of
any effect. Suppose the wife in the
story had died, and the husband had
been disposed to say to the sister: 81
only promised to marry you, and went
through the pretence of doing so, to re-
Eeve my wife's mind" Could she sue
him for preach of promise? Cases have
occurred in which man already we'd
tanned her promise to marry him when
he should become free by divorce or
death. And if he has, when that time
came, refused, and she has brought
suit, lawyers for her have argued that
his engagement was binding one; it
was like a contract to sell farm which
one expects to buy, and he must perform
it or pay damages. But the current of
thought among judges is that all such
engagements are contrary to public
policy and void. A married person
cannot make a binding promise to mar
ry, not even with reference to time
when freedom to fulfill it is expected.
Whoever, knowing the marriage, trusts
to such a promise, does not even gain
a right to sue for breach. But man
who being married pretends to be single.
and in that character engages himself to
q woman ignorant of his ties, cannot es-
cape damages on this ground.-N. Y.
Tribune