The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-11-21
THE BOGUS PREACHER CASE.
Opinion of the Supreme Court Upon Pre-
tended Ministers Marrying Folks.

Opinion of the Supreme Court Upon Pre-
tended Ministers Marrying Folks.
The unique case Of the State against
Brown, from--Pender county, where the
defendant was indicted for falsely inn
personating a Baptist minister and mar
rying couple, in which the Supreme
court recently held that the defendant
was guilty OF no crime, either statutory
or at common law, has been widely re-
ported and commented upon by the press
of the State.
The case is one of very great impor-
lance, involving as it does the validity of
the marriage tie and, to a great extent,
the social purity of the people 1t was
sent up from Pender county, where it
was tried in September. The parties thus
married, Joseph w. Smith and Mary u.
Newkirk, are satisfied and living together
as man and wife. The defendant, Il. J.
Brown, imparsonated a minister of the
Missionary Baptist denomination. The
jury found Brown guilty but he was dis
charged, judgment having been arrested
by the judge.
The indictment contains three counts:
j. Charging that defendant, not being
an ordained minister or a Justice Of the
Peace and not being by law authorized
so to do, did unlawfully, wilfully and cor
ruptly solemniZe a marriage between
male and female, &c.
z Charging that defendant, not being
authorized by law to celebrate a mar
riage, did unlawfully, &c, presume to
act as an ordained minister and celebrate
marriage between a male and female
person and to pronounce them man and
wife, contrary to the statute, &c.
3. Charging that defendant, not being
public officer, nor an ordained minis
ter or Justice of the Peace, did unlaw-
fully, &e., personate an ordained minis
ter, and so celebrate marriage between
male and female person and pronounce
them man and wife, contrary, &c.
The jury rendered a verdict OF guilty
and on motion of the defendant, judg-
ment was arrested and the Solicitor ex-
es no evidence by the State or the defen-
dant nor any exception, except as above
stated.
The case was argued before the SUI
preme court by the Attorney General and
Stevens and Beasley for the State. There
was no counsel ON the other side. The
Justice Faircloth. In the course OF the
opinion he says:
Assuming, every fact alleged to be
true, we are unable to discover any Grim
inal offence known to the law. We are
referred to no authority for the position
of the State. We were referred to Code
Section 1912, which only prescribes what
is a valid marriage; also to Code Section
1112 which imposes a penalty and de-
ciares it TO be q misdemeanor for any
officer to fail to return process, &c, or
for any person, who is not authorized
by law, to presume to act as any such of
6cer.
$50 the case is that Of a private citi-
zen, unofficial, celebrating a marriage
between a man and woman with their
consent and they are not complaining,
and are presumably satisfied and enjoy
ing their new relation. We are not a.
ware Of any statute or principle of the
common law declaring the action of the
defendant to be a criminal offence. We
are not considering the validity or inval-
idity or effect Of the action of the several
parties. Affirmed"
II notice in the Charlotte Observer"
said Mr.. Perrin Busbee yesterday in dis
cussing this remarkable case, that the
article is headed: Pretended ministers
may perform legal marriages. The
court has rendered no such decision. 1t
merely said that the defendant was guilty
of no crime in performing such marriage,
and distinctly refused to pass upon the
validity or invalidity Of such marriage,
as that question was not before it. 1t
would seem, however, that such msr-