The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-09-13

ton when judge of the supreme court
OF Missouri. as contained in II Amef;-
can Reports (66 Mo-, Dyer VS.. Branock.
on page 359 The brief goes on:
IN TINS case, Zachariah Wilson and
Jane Collins, both of ST. Louis in 1919.
IN the presence of witnesses, agreed to
become man and wife, and then -
cohabited together as man ami wife
Tor three weeks. At this time Maicr
Long reached st. Louis AMI Wilson
joined his expedition to the Rocky
mountains. Before leaving he made
arrangements for his wifes mother,
Mrs. Collins, to take care of Jane, etc.
rive years later Wilson returned to ST.
Louis, Mrs. Collins and Mrs. Wilson
having moved to ST. Charles in the
meantime. and was married to another
man according to the laws of Missouri
To this union female child was born
Later this wife died and in 1880 Wilson
sent for Jane Collins and they again
lived and cohabited together as before
as man and wife. And they thus lived
until the death of Wilson AS the re-
suit of the cohabitation for three weeks
In 1873, female child was born. The
parties, Dyer and Brapock, are de-
cendants Of Wilson by these two mar
riages. In that case, which is not as
strong as the one before your honor, the
learned judge, in an exhaustive review
of all the English and American au-
thorities on the subject, sustained ev-
cry contention Of the plaintiff in this
action concerning the legality of the
marriage between himself and the de-
PENDANT The law in Missouri relative
to who is capable of contracting mar
riage, the nature of the contract, and
the parties who were permitted to SOL
emnize marriage. was at that time sub
Stanttally the same as our own laws
are now. But the law requiring the
forms of solemnization was much more
strict, as will be seen from reading the
decision in question. Previous to the
solemnization the intentions of the
parties to any marriage had to be pub
lished for the period of Is days, or upon
three different days of public worship
in the meeting, or to be published in
writing which would give equal motor
iety."
The brief then quotes extensively
from the decision of the elder Napton.
which was one that covers q pages in
the reports and treats the theme of
common law marriages exclusively.
In rendering his decision in the Lucas
case Yesterday Judge Napton quoted
the following significant sentences from
the brief of Attorney Simpson:
In the case of Hutchins VS.. Kim
NELL, 81 Mich. 127, Judge Cooley de-
clared 1t to be the law of Michigan
that where parties agree presently to
form of the ceremony, or if in fact all
ceremony were dispensed with and the
parties lived together from that time
professedly in the relation of man and
wife, that this constituted valid mar
riage. Judge Cooley further adds:
This has become the settled doctrine
of the American courts; the few cases
of dissent, or apparent dissent being
borne down by great weight of author
ity In favor of the rule as we have
stated it.
1T seems to be the general rule, and
so far as l am able to learn, is with
out an exception that statutes requiring
certain formalities in the solemniZa lion
Of marriages and stating the parties
who are authorized to solemniZe ma
riages, are directory and not manda-
tory"
Attorney Casey. on behalf Of Giles
pie, asked and was granted an excep-
ton to the decision.