Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1884-06-20
Local
A Practical Joke.

In the Clerks Office of the Corporation
Court of Stanton is marriage license
signed J. H. Thomas, D. Clerk, but bear
ing the following ominous endorsement on
the outside:
Clerks Office of the Court of Hastings
for the City of Stau1lton.
The within license was returned to the
Office aforesaid this 18th June, 1884. Said
license was not issued from this Office and
no application for the issue thereof to the
within named parties was ever made to
me at the date given, or at any other time.
No person by the name of j. IL. Ihomas
was ever Deputy in this Office and he is TO-
tally unknown to me. In short the license
is pronounced fraudulent and forgery.
Given under my hand, this 18th June,
1884.
NEWTON ARGENBRlGHT,
Clerk.
The license was returned to the Clerks
Office on Tuesday last, as required by law,
by Rev. Geo. A. Long. minister of the
Lutheran Church. at Mt. Sidney. 1t is
in the usual printed legal form, with this
usual final announcement at the end:
Minister'S Return of Marriage.
I certify That on the 18th day of June,
1884, at Mt. Sidney. united in Marriage,
the above named and described parties,
under authority of the annexed License.
GRO. A. LONG.
We are given this history of how the
document came to be returned to the
Clerks Office from which it had never been
issued: On Sunday afternoon last a
merry party, three ladies and one gentle
man took carriage at Staunton for Mt.
Sidney. twelve miles distant. One of the
young ladies was sister of the ''groom,"
another was the "bride,'' and the third
was companion. One of the parties had
procured an old printed marriage license
form and filled it up according to law"
Arriving at Mt. Sidney they repaired to the
residence of Mr.. Bernard White who they
asked to marry them. He declined, and the
party then applied to Rev. Mr.. Long, who
seeing the license was in proper form, per-
formed the marriage ceremony. The we'd
cling party then got into the carriage and
came back to their respective homes in
Staunton, stopping to lee the groom out
who went to his home. OF course such a
joke could not be kept and it got out the
next day. The young folks can be par
doned by older heads, but nevertheless the
marriage ceremony is something not SO
light as to admit of being made jest Of;
nor is it very deferential to minister of
the gospel to put him in the position of
performing a solemn ceremony in order
ioLo NOV ho cuoooccful
The occurrence has made so many matri.
monial lawyers outside of the legal profess
sion, that we copy the following from l
Minors Institutes, to be used in the social
discussion now rife on the present legal
status of the two principal parties to the
p tactical joke:
"Summary of the circumstances usually
necessary to the validity of a marriage in
Virginia.
cit seems that no marriage in the Com
mOnwealth is ipso fdcto void, or indeed in
general yoidabIe, which is celebrated by
person protesting, and believed by either
party to be authorized to celebrate it, per-
haps even without license, between
single persons of sound mind, of like color,
that is both whites or both negroes, of age
to consent thereto fourteen IN males and
twelve in females) and actually consent
ing. V. c. 1873, Oh. 104, IL 1, 8, 4 to 7.''
Minors Institutes list Ed p. 257.
It will be seen that if either party
believe marriage ceremony is legal then
it Is legal and not to be yoided, In the
present case, however, we learn that the
young people who were the principals in
the joke, have in fact been engaged to be
married for some time and will soon be
married in earnest.