Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-04-13
AGENT V. WILLIS.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
February 81, 1899.

|. AGENT V. WILLIS.
supreme Court of North Carolina.
February 81, 1899.
A REGISTER OF DEEDS WHO IS
SUES A MARRIAGE LICENSE
UPON THE OATH OF a WITNESS
THAT THE GIRL TO BE MARRIED
HAD TOLD HIM SHE WAS IS
YEARS OLD. WHICH WAS ALL
WITNESS KNEW ABOUT IT. IS
LIABLE FOR THE PENALTY FOR
WItONGFULLY ISSUING SUCH
LICENSE, IF THE GIRL WAS
UNDER IS YEARS OF AGE.
This was an action by Agent against
Wills. Register Of Deeds of Craven
county. for the penalty for the wrong
iui issuance of marriage license to
the plaintiffs daughter, who was a girl
uhder IS years of age, without plaintiff's
consent The evidence showed that the
p'ainti1f lived in the same town as the
defendant and knew him: that defen-
uant Knew nothing as to the girls age;
that about 2 O'Clock, on the night of
September 8. 1898, he was called upon
by two men who asked him to issue the
Incense. but lie declined: that he saw
the men afterwards, and told them
10 swear to her age, and it was then and
therc agreed that one of them should
go to the girl, and find out what per-
son TO get To swear TO her age: that
the girl told him to get n man by name
Oh Iolor, ana that Tolor came and
swore That the girl had told him three
DAYS before that She was Is years old.
ana that was all that he knew about il.
the oath being made and accom-
panied by statement as to his means
oil information. Harrison testified that
ne told the defendant that he thought
the girl was about IS years old. His
Honor told the jury that upon the evil
dence the defendant had used reasona-
Die diligence to ascertain the age of the
piaintif S daughter. and instructed
them TO answer the issue on that Doint
in the affirmative.
Inc court says:
inc correctness of that instruction is
me matter before us for decision. Did
the defendant make reasonable inquiry
ABOUT the age of the girl before he
granted the license? TO all persons who
believe that the welfare of human So
ciety depends largely upon the family
relation, and that tho contract OF mar
rage should be defended by careful and
just laws, Tor the purpose of guarding
against legal impediments, and to pre
vent the marriage of those under n Ger
tain age. when the parties are presum
cd not to be able to contract, the duties
o OF rhe n register es,: Of deeds. the
ol'.cer IN our state charged with
the duty of issuing marriage
licenses. seem most important and
most solemn. That officer must en-
erclse his duties carefully and con-
scientiously, and not as a mere matter
or form. 1t was said by this court in
Williams V. Hodges: 1.-The license shall
not be issued. as of course, to any per
son who shall apply for il. The register
Is charged TO be cautious, and to scru-
tinize the application. 1t must apDear
proDaole to him, upon reasonable in
quiry, when he has not personal knowl-
cage OF the parties, that the license NAV
and ought to be issued" There was
no dispute about the evidence in This
case, and now, applying what we have
said above to the facts were proho
bic reasons given to the defendant IN
authorize him 20 issue the license =
TO believe that the girl was IS years
Old! Did he make reasonable INQUIRY
according to the evidence. about that
matter before he acted? We are clearly
or the opinion that he did not. and
mat the instruction of his honor to that
eject was erroneous. The contracting
parties-the father. the register OF
deeds, the persons who made the npnIi
cation-were all residents of New Bern
At dead hour of the night the per-
sons who made the application 90 m
the residence Of the defendant for that
purpose. and, upon the application he
ing refused. they return at o'clock in
the night and again they are nut off to
a later hour. The license was issued two
hours later, or about three quarters
of an hour after sunrise.
Those were most suspicious circum-
stances, and should have put the de-
PENDANT on his guard. at every point. as
TO his duties Instead of requiring in
formation from friends or connections
of the family. who might reasonably be
supposed to know the age of the girl
he took her word rs to her age. and
that message brought through persons
who were not shown TO be trustworthy.
He knew nothing OF her or of her age.
Each person who was examined about
the matter said that he got his infor-
| nation from the girl and from no one
else. The defendant seemed to think
that an oath on the part Of anybody
was all that was necessary to authorize
him to issue the license. but the char
acter of the witness and accuracy of
information are the things that the reg
lster of deeds should look to when he
ISSUES license for marriage, in cases
where there is doubt about the age
OF the parties. The oath made by To-
lor' at best. was only n statement of
what the girl had told him as 10 her
age and he qualified his oath by
SIatinG the source of his information
we might say something on the moral
aspect or this case. but we forbear 1t
Is enough to say that there was error
III the instruction of his honor for
which there must be n new trial. New
trial. e"