New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-10-15

= -
asked for alimohy, The man, denied the marriage,
explaining that his calling his,eompanious his
{" wife was done merelyto give On ar of.respecta-
bility to their arrangements that there TRs never
any marriage ceremony or any contract or mutual
promise of marriage between them, and that she
never understood or believed that she was wife,
but know perfectly that tho tie was temporary.
The evidence seemed to support the denial and the
Judge says that If the pair never actually agreed
upon marriage, but only represented themselves TO
the public married neither has the claims OF hus-
band or wife upon the other. A mans introducing
woman as his wife is not enough TO make her So II
neither no nor she understand that the marriage s
real
Several decisions, loosely narrated, have given
many persons an impression that assuming the out
ward social appearance Of wedlock amounts to mar
rage But it is not the law of this State that mere
reputation Is equivalent to a genuine contract.
New-YOrk law undoubtedly disponsos with any
wedding ceremony. ANY actual consent by which
the parties take each other for husband and wife
Intentionally and at once sufices to bring them
under the obligations Of marriage. Such was the
Bissell case many years ago. in which the man gave
the woman a ring as they were riding together in
chaise and she accepted 1t her wedding ring, and
went to live with him as his wife, and the Court
adjudged 1t marriage. Such was the Hayes case,
in which married man, in the guise Of bachelor,
cOurted girl, brought a pretended clergyman to
her homo, and we9t through mock marriage. ex-
psctDg to go tree when he chose like the scamps in
English novels, but was afterward condemned for
bgamY the Court saying that neither Clergyman
nor ceremony was important; the actual agree
ment was enough. Such was the HYnes case, in
which Judge olger in the Court Of Appeals, two or
three years ago, explained the law in Language
which was widely quoted. But cases of this kind
where there Is an actual though an informal even
an unoXpressed, agreement Of marriage must be
carefully distinguished from those IL which there ls
no agreement, but only pretence.
When the woman declares that there was an
agreement of marriage and the man denies it, and q
certificate or testimony Of witnesses Ia not forth
coming, proof that the man publicly represented her
who Welt with him as being his wife is received by
the courts as strong and important corrobOration
of her version. Such was the Brinkley case, which
at several stages attracted public attention. The
woman earnestly and under Oatn asserted an agree
ment Of marriage. The man denied any agreement,
but admitted that he had introduced her as his wife
Mt their clearinghouse, had called physician to
visit her as Mrs. BrnKloy," and IN various ways
through term Of years. had treated her as married
to him and the Court said that with this coTObora-
tlon her account Of their relation was TO be believed
rather than his. Moreover those who give credit
on the faith of such representations are entitled
to hold the reputed husband bound by them as if
thoY wero true. One who has represented a woman
to shopkeepers and landlades entitled to use his
name will not be allowed to wrggle out of liability
for her reasonable bills by denying that the pair
were ever married, But receiving such declarations
as evidence that marriage took place is different
thing from accepting them as substitute for a real
contract A fraud on the public IS not, as yet the
same as an informal nuptial tie. There is protection
for a woman who believed herself married and finds
her wfehood suddenly repudated, but not for one
who unites In relation which she knows to be
sanctioned by law, but hopes to shield from re-
prlach ny a fictitious ring and a sham name.