The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-09-04

tract are not a matter Of civil cogni,ancc.. The only
ceremony and one not So '!-eirsted ia. that II, Ito
's'%st 81 The 'SS IS1 'asn. SS's" rs,"i.,. e L, S"n DC Sa'ii ill.,:
p ps, me =, ins,, Rag whlIo W ~. ,n',st !, y, r",nns.eh''"
marriages. Justice Gilbert OF the supreme
Court said in Van I'uyl vs.. Van Tnyi. in lSm:
.s,i d ;S. i w sfsl !" ny ~ ' '"rs s% 10 " rom ,"' d T;r'n AN rs. S""%:
Ing ~, ' he inn,f'nvs .on'tn,t ~ r"Gr1srl' imputed TO- !,
Iulielnty. 4. tie law stands, a valid marriage, to all
,ma Mt .nh PURPOSES. is established ny pr."l OF At, ne
Fp.s,ts sexes! tapan!c ct contra ,iins. 70 lake EACH,
tract is folio Ell Iy cuhatiiaton.
An. wrll.rcEulatei governments require
that The ~contrNc, Lctwcen The sexes TO- marry
Reeve Law nf Husband and Wlfr.'.
In showing TINT. although tho law desires to
leave tho road to marriage FREQ and open. It
nevertheless does not rountcnanco. improper
relations ns an equivalent. Lord .Stowcli. in
tho case OF L.inds Va. Belisuris. said
merse; w,thon, u. Intention q e.naoit alton and
,,sss . !" AK .@rn%;,.,o.. M, when ~" Es,'sn,
tioi. that IN a state OF nature would lo marr!ase. "ni.
IN ~ ' s"i.ty S ct r p4.. .,y MED ~" ID ' :.. q. !. 'n !. S,Ups9,y
called. a marriage IN the sight OF tod,
The courts have passed upon various con-
filled Mt n future time. 1t is Lrll that unless
the agreement Is to I've man and wife ut the
iLle va IltNllE u oIllINCt IL u " u luUTTINAe
in this State. When the agreement. is ,hnt a
tsnitg sas T Sa had as a pS5'I is iSl,o WsGn E ,l'G m orpSdTi. /.
ate continuation. there is no mariias". An
agreement to wed whom u wife dies. inllowei
W combinations. Is INVALID rs u marriage. The
Court OF Appeals. In Cheney We. Arnold. says:
sonSe!'.,,Sn doc. not a@o,n, to 4 marriage n t.et
s wa. s : o"nuIs for w sast S"n's .,,inrsinr " 4 ,ar t%s ,n,,s Of Nv "
formal solemhihat,on IN the ecr.esasiral courts. AMI
". t !sn s"p isv Ds Su "' !, .r rss.rH nsy s1 to v nAS. '" "si...,ss, e !
y valid msrr age at common law.
Aease in our courts TINT lie quoted often was
that Of Beatrice Bisscll against John Eissell.
It appeared tina, they agreed on July 10 for
their welding: That day. while they were
FT. naof. \, sa ss%s!"!S 4STs' IS yaSr 'w !. 1t ! :n ri nSt
Ei"riisss " Goh %.s W,lS iii oIio Srsd.S and in TIC s, sosrt
decided q valid marriage had been contracted.
Many cases to establish common law mar
bly,. thnn ever before. and tho law GU this sub.
ject may he clucidated further. Among tho
from tho Hcrbst case. anu still pending. are
Mrs. TISrsnaces Won Ak against the heirs oil
w Sl!nS As sen Of f Slmsn 1 sssahs. maurice y
against Barclay H. WarbSrton. son Of Charles
+; WARRINGTON. proprietor OF tho philadelphiu
Agnes Cunningham against William Ellin.
also sought to prove. q marriage before n msn
representing himself to he Clergyman. who's
identity was not disclosed; This case was de,
cided against her. but the litigation is pending
-Loio Fuller. skirt dancer. against William B.
Hayes. There Is u short written contract in
this case. alleged to have been signed by the
parties and Witnessed BY Delilah Z. Fuller.
s%rInretti. proprietor Of the Hotel America; 80.
women as plaintiffs. was broken in the Su.
preme Court recently by u suit Of William
Bishop. theatrical advance agent. to establish
q common law marriage with Rose, {; Noyes
formerly an actress. She admitted that she
had lived with him seventeen years. but denied
that she had married him. She admitted mar.
ryine Richard c. GeiGer subsequently. Bishop
claimed that his reputation had been ut stake,
as he had introduced her to his relatives and
friends as his wife. A jury decided before
Justice LEACH Of tho Supreme Court that
One advantage Of the existence Of common
law marriages. which Is touched lightly by thu
authorities. is that II II. ceremonial marriage
should be declared invalid because the stat.
utes In some. material respect had not been
complied with. the agreement might be consid.
cred q marriage under the common law.